Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 29th Mar 2013, 22:43
  #1481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 70
Posts: 1,938
'EasyStreet' my quote does not suggest 'supercruise' but 'above Mach 1 at min. A/B setting'. If the exact numbers are out there I'll attempt to find them - one day. The definition of 'supercruise' seems to vary a lot but the quote does not imply 'supercruise' at all.
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2013, 22:52
  #1482 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,039
My old Tornado F3 cruised at M0.99 in dry in 1991.
The Lightning cruised in cold power at M1.3 in the 1960s......
ORAC is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2013, 23:16
  #1483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Depends what speed you are calling 'cruise', LM is M1.5 plus isn't it?
the f-35 is a 750 kt limited to M1.6, I'll let the experts do the alt and speed conversions, but I work it out to be M1.6 in the low 20k ft and at 35k ft the AB will be well backed off

When asked, Lt. Col. Hank "Hog" Griffiths is also quoted as saying the f-35a will do M1.25 in dry.
and
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...112fighter.pdf
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."

that's M1.2 dry with with bombs and missiles, no 4.5 gen can match that

















Last edited by JSFfan; 29th Mar 2013 at 23:39.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2013, 23:39
  #1484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,200
The definition of 'supercruise' seems to vary a lot
Au contraire, I think it's universally understood to mean 'able to sustain supersonic level flight without reheat'.

Lt. Col. Hank "Hog" Griffiths is also quoted as saying the f-35a will do M1.25 in dry.
No he isn't. He is saying that it can get up to M1.25 in reheat. When you cancel reheat, you are (for a moment) doing M1.25 in dry power. By your rationale, a Tornado F3 can do M2.0 in dry power!

Arguments about how long it takes to slow to subsonic speed are irrelevant - if you cannot sustain >M1.0 without reheat, you are not supercruising, even if you cover 150 miles during the deceleration.

Last edited by Easy Street; 29th Mar 2013 at 23:41.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2013, 23:53
  #1485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
do you have a link to what you claim?

"Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners."

for reference the f-22 is said to have a M1.5 dry for a 100 mile dash

Last edited by JSFfan; 30th Mar 2013 at 00:04.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 01:26
  #1486 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
I don't think it's ever been touted to have supercruise, and to suddenly make up that it does would be a very bold thing to do...

Easystreet is right, the only definition I've EVER heard, is being able to sustain supersonic without using reheat in level flight. Because Lockheed tries to suggest high subsonic speed or low reheat in supersonic is also supercruise, doesn't make it so.
Bastardeux is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 01:30
  #1487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
supercruise for LM is M1.5+, M1.2 dry isn't classed as supercruise, although the eu would class it as such

Last edited by JSFfan; 30th Mar 2013 at 01:31.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 01:36
  #1488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Kbrockman: I'd suggest that the first upgrade would be from Pratt & Whitney, giving more thrust or making the F-135 lighter or both. Engine technology hasn't stood still either since the design of the F-135 which takes it core from the older F-22 engine.

This sort of upgrade worked extremely well on the Harrier, and as further weight reduction on the Dave B will be difficult given the lengths already gone to, I see it as the priority.

With the advances in Avionics technology I seem to recall that the GR7 to GR9 upgrade actually lightened the aircraft whilst increasing the capability. Which was handy when the requirement to carry Sniper, a Terma pod and a useful weapon load was essential. Weight growth over the lifetime of an airframe is not a given, but more thrust is always good.
WhiteOvies is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 01:44
  #1489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
engine upgrade is slotted for block 6, prior blocks get the engine upgrade at major o/haul

Last edited by JSFfan; 30th Mar 2013 at 01:45.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 02:04
  #1490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,136
supercruise for LM is M1.5+
LM saying that is a bit like BOEING trying to redefine what a thermal runaway is in regard to the 787 Flatliner's battery woes, it suits their PR bilge. Supercruise is widely accepted as being the ability to maintain supersonic flight with a useful weapon/fuel load without the use of re-heat. I assume the quote about the F-35 being able to do a 150 mile dash at M1.2 was with an internal weapon load? Typhoon has demonstrated supercruise with a useful external load so your assertion that no current 4.5 gen fighter can match the F-35 may be a little flawed...

-RP
Rhino power is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 02:06
  #1491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
yes, I said that eu supercruise isn't M1.5+
the phoon with with 2 x 2,000lb bombs, missiles and fuel for the same or greater combat radius?

Last edited by JSFfan; 30th Mar 2013 at 02:09.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 02:25
  #1492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,136
Can't remember the exact figures, and can't be ar$ed to go trawling through umpteen million web pages to find them but, i think the Tiffie was with an air to air weapon load.

-RP
Rhino power is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 10:09
  #1493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said
It doesn't matter how much you dress it up with claims and comparisons to other aircraft (in-service aircraft), that means (as many others have said here) it doesn't supercruise. Yet another of its shortfalls like acceleration time and sustained g. But it seems that we are able to continue to conveniently overlook these performance issues once they are a few weeks old.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 10:16
  #1494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
well if you can ignore this, there isn't much to say
"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"
JSFfan is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 10:21
  #1495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
You've said it yourself,

The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft
I can't see much doubt there.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 10:33
  #1496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
well if M1.5+ is your standard, only the f-22 supercruises
JSFfan is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 10:39
  #1497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
If Lt. Col. Hank "Hog" Griffiths, director of the integrated Joint Strike Fighter test force, says it needs min burner to maintain supersonic, I don't see any argument.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 10:40
  #1498 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,039
if M1.5+ is your standard
The only person here defining arbitrary standards to try and deny an incontrovertible fact is yourself. When in a hole, stop digging.
ORAC is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 10:47
  #1499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
sorry guys, I'm not in a hole..it seems you can't accept that the f-35 goes M1.2 in dry

you have it wrong courtney, he said cruise, not supersonic
JSFfan is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 10:49
  #1500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,869
I have the F-35 performance figures in front of me every day - it does not maintain M1.2 in dry.

Stop arguing with those who fly or have flown in supersonic aircraft.
Just This Once... is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.