F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'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.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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 22:39.
The definition of 'supercruise' seems to vary a lot
Lt. Col. Hank "Hog" Griffiths is also quoted as saying the f-35a will do M1.25 in dry.
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 22:41.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"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; 29th Mar 2013 at 23:04.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
supercruise for LM is M1.5+
-RP
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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 01:09.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
-RP
so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
"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"
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
if M1.5+ is your standard