This claims it was exceeded and what the initial batch cost was closer to 11 Million dollars vs a 6.09 promise. Of course there was a less of a legal argument because even the GAO claimed that the NTE definition was ambiguous at best. There are obviously many ways to look at the development of the F-16 to the F-35 and similar ways to look at the F-16 production vs the F-35 production.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrtxDdaWuM

Haven’t seen a lot of the C but you are right when in the air, people tend to like it the best (at least the ones i’ve spoken to) but the large wing doesn’t appeal to me personally.

In that shot the B seems to have smaller wings than the A, but in real life they’re the same area.

…and i can find at least 3 different statements from L.M clarifying F-35 dont supercruise,
but you clinch on to that single trolling comment of “non-technical supercruise” and claim its technical supercruise

Maintain Mach 1.2 without afterburner, sounds like supercruising to me. Meanwhile you don’t have any qualm about Gripen claiming supercruise for the same M1.2, even though it’s with a really crappy internal fuel fraction that it can’t actually reach anywhere with. Stick drop tanks on for equivalent range and it immediately loses that ability. Even with 4AAMs it drops to M1.1. It’s the most pathetic supercruise claim ever.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20559
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx

The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

As for the level of misinformation in the rest of the Gripen NG brochure and the deliberate misrepresentation of the F-35, it’s just comical. E.g. range, Gripen’s range stated as almost 3 times combat radius with 2 drops tanks. F-35’s range stated as 2 times combat radius. F-35 said to have no supercruise, with just 2 AMRAAMs, when in fact it can supercruise and can carry more than 2 AMRAAMs. As for their thrust and wing loading calculations, all complete BS for several of the aircraft on that graph. They lack even basic mathematical skills.

http://jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/DutchAirForceAssociation_Gripen_2009.pdf

Of course we know from the FTD’s and the 10SAR that the full up production version supercruise speed is Mach 1.7+ (Mach 1.76 according to the 2010 Select Acquisition Report).

Courtesy Raddisconnect

http://s21.postimg.org/ka2wd1zmf/F_22_KPP.png

M1.82 according to AFM, 2008, August, P75.

Bright Adder is being developed by Qinetiq and Selex, AFAIK.

Yes but the learning is shared.

I don’t need a source. It’s a realistic estimate regd. timeframe of things to come, taking both technical and political considerations into account.
And I am not biased, as a born Euro I like all Eurocanards, frankly I could not care less about Typhoon/Rafale until you started your usual Jon-Lake-type crap.

You don’t need a source? So you just make crap up to fit your agenda? Glad we got that sorted.

Much..
1) The article says the first operational AESA radar for the Typhoon will be available for order in 2015/16. That, of course, does not mean it will be ordered at that time. I just cannot see EF partner nations storming over the Mk1 immediately after it’s out.. Even worse, they most likely won’t make the integration on time with then-to-be-built Tranche 3A, which will furthermore complicate things because the radars will have to be retrofitted.

It certainly doesn’t mean it won’t be ordered at that time either. Yeah, it’s not like fleet aircraft ever have maintenance downtime is it? All your arguments are non-sensical with only one biased driver.

2) The two-phase update is, indeed, mentioned within t
he P2E. That means the AESA reaches its full capability with two updates, 2017 and 2019. The problem is they don’t say the Mk2, they just mention it is AESA, which can also mean Mk1. Let’s continue: the article clearly mentions that P2E will also include integration of Storm Shadow which is badly wanted by RAF, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Italy. But neither Italy and Oman, nor Saudis are scheduled for Captor-E Mk2, AFAIK. Which indicates the whole talking about reaching full capabilities means full capabilities of Mk1/1+.

So again, for your convenience, you look at the two phases as something other than Mk1 and Mk2? Clutching at straws a bit here aren’t you?

3) Elsewhere the article says : there won’t be a fully-capable radar AESA in 2015: capabilities will be expanded and implemented over time, with the two successive releases of 2017 and 2019. Capabilities such as synthetic aperture radar and electronic attack, including electronic support measures and jamming, will be introduced in service over time.. This little sentence in bold comes AFTER the mention of two updates for 2017 and 2019 and is clearly separated from those. It also gives no specific date given for these capabilities, just says that these will be introduced later in service. Which means 2025 when I’m merciful. And full capability few years later after that.

Introduced in service starting at those two points. It also says, ‘implemented over time’ BEFORE the 2017 and 2019 too. Obviously the whole fleet won’t be upgraded at once, and an entire Mk2 fleet could well take until 2020, but it will start being introduced in 2019. 2017 and 2019 are the main baseline dates, hence the term ‘releases’ (if you were an engineer you might actually understand configuration management terminology), but update is not instantaneous.

The article says the Mk1 will be available in ~2016. But there is no mention about Mk2 coming in 2019.. There is an update mentioned for 2019, but nowhere does the article say this update will make the radar an Mk2. Besides that, it is mentioned that the Mk2 is expected/said to have EW attack and other advanced functions but even that ain’t certain as of yet. Bright Adder was originally a demonstrator of AESA for Tornadoes which would suggest focus on advanced A-G modes.

There is no mentioned of Mk2 in that article at all, just the capabilities associated with it. The article specifically said Bright Adder was focused on EW, it is based on the ARTS radar, which was demonstrated on a GR4.

You have again shown that you simply cannot work with even up-to-date material because you are seeing things which are not written there. Your obvious bias towards Typhoon is to blame, nothing else..

I think it’s you whose actually shown that, by selectively misinterpreting statements and twisting them to your agenda. Your French aircraft bias is to blame and nothing else.

Has anyone who believes that the F35 can supercruise at c mach 1.2 explained why it can only do this for 150 miles? What brick wall does the F35 encounter after 150 miles? Lack of fuel. not good in the interceptor role. Skin temperature problems, also not good in the interceptor role, or is there another particular reason for the 150 miles only supercruise ability in level flight?

Could be TET-related, or might be a factor of the planned combat radius.

I doubt about it.
All weather low level penetration strikes was successively of Mirage IIIE, (Mirage 5F and Jaguar to a lesser extent) 2000N, 2000D and now Rafale.

It was a much dangerous task before the introduction of automatix TF on 2000N (a single mistake from the leader could lead the whole flight to crash, ans this happened a few times). It is not danger free today either, but it is much more secure, reliable and efficient, as today 2000D & Rafale can perform fully automated runs (including release).

It’s undoubtedly safer to fly newer aircraft at low altitude than older aircraft, but the problem comes when you encounter SAMs, AAA and MANPADS. Without those it’s a piece of cake.

Isn’t it quite simple? An aircraft that can sustain mach 1+in level flight on dry thrust.

Not in the true sense. Many fighters can manage marginally supersonic flight whilst clean, e.g. the F-16, but no one ever claimed the F-16 could supercruise. It’s generally seen as >M1.5.

This specifically says without afterburner.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx