Well, if you want other to know that you know what you shld not know… That’s the way you do it.

Yes. GE have been adamant that they master the new step in turbine design (material). It will be interesting to know if PW is as much affirmative in their communication (I don’t have any doubt of it but… who knows ?) or if there is some patent issue (but we wld have heard any sign of it since long 😉 )

???? I am not following your reasoning in this post at all, please clarify.

Some pilots have suggested that it could SC at M1.2. For the pilot who said with min AB, which variant was it? The B and C probably can’t SC with no AB at all, what about the A?

One issue is that there are two different quotes that people use to contend the point of the F-35 super cruising:

The first was from an F-35 test pilot Hank Griffiths:
“What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going … you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you’re pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you’re cruising,” Griffiths said. “So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air.”

The second was from an Air Force Magazine Quote from Steve O’Brian:
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.
“Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said.
The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to “throw” such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.
There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach .9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes “through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily.” The transonic area is “where you really operate.”
In combat configuration, the F-35’s range exceeds that of fourth generation fighters by 25 percent. These are Air Force figures, O’Bryan noted. “We’re comparing [the F-35] to [the] ‘best of’ fourth gen” fighters. The F-35 “compares favorably in any area of the envelope,” he asserted.

Not to beat a dead horse or anything…..

The story of the F-106 speed record flight of Mach 2.31 is also on that site. It was not a modified bird, but reading the account, it doesn’t sound like taking the six to those speeds (at least the modified one) was unexciting.
http://www.f-106deltadart.com/speedrecord.htm

f-106
Range: 1,800 mi (1,600 nm, 2,900 km) combat
Ferry range: 2,700 mi (2,300 nm, 4,300 km)
vs mig-31
Combat radius: 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 / 720 km (447 mi) at Mach 2.35
Ferry range: 3,300 km (2,050 mi)
it slower but probably have better range

You need to look at combat radius, NOT RANGE. Your data is waayyy off. The flight manual is online.

http://www.f-106deltadart.com/manuals/Tech_Performance_Data.pdf

Obligatory has a point here, in the SEAD aspect. The USAF and others are looking to offload some aspects of identifying and jamming to UAV/UCAV. The RQ-180 and UCLASS (MALD-J would almost fit into the definition as well) will be in the forefront of identifying and jamming threats before the first strikes go in. Destroying, or suppressing, the pop-up threats will require the NJD coupled with a Growler type aircraft. The real weakness is the need to replace the HARM and ALARM with a long range, very fast missile, near term.

F-106 had some issues, the biggest being pretty limited in its role. I personally thought the airframe was pretty robust and made sense. But three micro AAMs for armament was pretty restrictive. Imagine the range F-35 would have had with a payload requirement of 1500 pounds… Total.

F-106 had a combat radius of roughly 500 nmi on internal fuel, of course it rarely flew without it’s area ruled supersonic eft’s as they apparently had little impact on aircraft performance for it’s primary mission.

The weapons on the a/g harpoint would have to be of the same type as those on the door. The ones on the door would be launched first. For instance an AMRAAM on the door plus 2 AMRAAMs on a double launcher on the a/g station or 2 SDBs on the door and 4 SDBs on the a/g launcher.

The shape of the door would probably have to be modified with bumps for the AMRAAM’s fins and probably more internal space.

Too much modifications.

I may be misunderstanding you, but I was was responding to Mig-31bm’s post about adding weapons to the outer doors. The Aim-120’s are on a pneumatic launcher that rotates down to push the missile clear. The Air to Ground station ejects the weapons straight down. The missiles on stations 7 and 5 do not have to be launched to deploy weapons from stations 8 & 4. ( I apologize ahead of time if this was what you were saying). When 6 Amraams are integrated, there will have to be a new ejector ( that does not exist yet, to my knowledge) fitted to the air to ground station.

they are still not very spectacular in these aspect , they not too bad but no way as good as su-27 , rafale , ef-2000 or gripen , as i said before F-35 main strength is stealth , it should focus more on carry long range AAM rather than carry many short range AAM and let the stealth go to waste

Conjecture, I will leave it at that. The F-18 is actually quite spectacular in pitch rate. Twin tailed aircraft generally also have more control in this regime. Again, carrying ordinance on the wings is going to hurt roll rates, period.

F-15, typhoon can carry sth like 8-10 AAM missiles , what kind of AAM missile they carry depend on mission but they are not limited to 4 long range AAM
AIM-9X externally will cause significant increase in RCS because of 3 reasons:
1- the sensor head ( aim-9 sensor head is not designed to reduce RCS like EOTS )
2- their fin create perfect 90 degree conner reactor = very high RCS
3- really doubt that the pylon was designed to reduce RCS , they look exactly same as normal pylon on F-16
last even if the AIM-9X + pylon RCS is very small , only 0.1 m2 that all ready enough to negate the whole stealth of F-35 make it become sth like F-18E/F

Again, conjecture: carrying anything externally will hurt RCS but I suggest you take a look at the F-35’s 1, and 11 stations in pictures before deciding it’s going to be a major issue.
” A study now underway could boost that total to six Amraams. Other weapons, including infrared-guided air-to-air missiles, would be carried externally, with plans for a “stealthy” JSF adaptation using a low-signature pylon design. Still, the radar signature would increase, as would drag, further reducing the F-35’s potential” http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html
As far as AAM numbers, the F-15 usually does not usually carry more than four radar guided missiles, nor does the typhoon, Su-27, ect. They can, but it’s really a moot point.

actually the EWP can carry 2000 pounds weapon , it can carry the BLU-109ER , and as i have explained above ,carry only 2 JDAM will be pretty much useless in a high threat environment when F-35 stealth is needed , so what the point , it much better to carry alot more aim-120 and sdb to overwhelm enemy air defense
F-22 was considered to be deficient in air to ground because it dont have targeting pod , it’s radar air to ground mode doesnt work not because it cant use 2000 pounds JDAM
last but not least it not the F-18 that iam interested in , it’s the weapon pod ( can be use on other aircraft ), upgrade F-35 weapon bay to be able to do the same…etc

2000 lb GBU-31 is over 12 feet long, compare that to the BLU-109 at around eight feet. And the F-22 has the upgrade for ground mapping on the APG-77 (increment 3.1). The issue was, and is, the shallow weapons bay.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-fields-first-upgraded-f-22-raptors-369886/