why is every country in the world after buying this aircraft :confused:

It’s the only western 5th gen on the market, and currently the only exportable 5th gen in the world, at least until PAK-FA and the JXX arrive, and who knows if the JXX will be up for export or if the performance will be any good. 5th gen fighters are expensive, and currently there are no publicly acknowledged, serious work being done on 5th gen European fighters. I’ll agree, I’m not a huge fan of the F-35, but it’s the only choice most nations have as far as 5th gens, and with 4th gens being surpassed in the next 15 years, it makes sense to go 5th gen. I suppose it does have some niceties though- it is stealthy, has an excellent radar, ECCM, IRST, and DIRCM.

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”…

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

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…

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 producti9on engines.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For the trolls…

RL30563
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program:
Background, Status, and Issues

I checked back through my earlier versions. The document is ‘updated’ quite regularly & ALL versions from at least 2002-2006 (some time in 2007-2008 Appendix A has been reformatted to the table most are more familiar with that does not include speed) includes the following…

Appendix A: JSF Operational/Performance and Cost Requirements
Speed: subsonic cruise with supersonic dash speeds comparable to F-16 and F/A-18

And flight tests of the F-35’s Diverterless Supersonic Inlet (DSI) on an F-16 Block 30 “covered the entire F-16 flight envelope and achieved a maximum speed of Mach 2.0“.

Sorry but your totally made up BS of designed Mach limit of Mach 1.6 just does not past the smell (much less the fact) test. Just like with the BS with the F-35’s combat radius, you are taking a MINUMUM REQUIREMENT & trying to pass it off as MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE.

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

My guess is that they covered the entire envelope up to M=2.0 because they wanted data for this sort of intake for any future designs or changes in F-35 performance. It doesn’t make sense to put together a demonstrator and only test up to your minimum limit. You’d want to get as much data as possible. It’s not cheap to modify an F-16 like this, nor is flight time itself on a fighter aircraft.

It looks like a headless bird.:D Nice find, nonetheless.

saab stealth fighter concept showing how to incorporate canards stealthily (fig 3)

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=SE2003000705&wo=2003098739&DISPLAY=STATUS

Many thanks. I’ve been looking for that. 🙂