Ugh! Omnirole isn't what you think it is. It's just a marketing term for an ASF that does many thing effectively.
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Ugh! Omnirole isn't what you think it is. It's just a marketing term for an ASF that does many thing effectively.
youre so desperate to include the Rafale as an air superioirty fighter you are actually attempting to twist basic history, alter facts, and redefine words
Dude, you're just too dumb to argue with.
You don't even know what an ASF is. You don't even have any coherent arguments.
Btw, it seems Trump's announced a new jet to upgrade the F-35 with 2 engines. There go all your arguments.
Trump is pitching a new supercharged twin-engine F-35 with a new name: F-55
The CEO of Lockheed Martin, which makes the F-35, said recently that he wants to upgrade the jet to become a "fifth-generation plus" aircraft.
www.businessinsider.com
As per USAF, Supercruise is attaining & sustaining Mach 1.5 or more speed on Mil power without involving the burners. No operational plane till date(not even current Su-57 or J-20) matches F-22's supercruising ability. So Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, Su-35S etc. are not true supercruisers within this parameter(as given by USAF).
The link which @randomradio posted, proved how much supersonic persistence Su-30 has got, but even it's no F-22 Raptor in that regard.
The link which @randomradio posted, proved how much supersonic persistence Su-30 has got, but even it's no F-22 Raptor in that regard.
The Americans put the "more than mach 1.5" clause just to separate themselves from what Rafale and Typhoon had already achieved.
The next benchmark will be mach 2 or even mach 2.5.
The reality is anything that can reliably cross the transonic barrier without afterburner and stay there is a supercruiser.
He keeps calling Rafale ASF but that wasn't the case against PAF J-10 export. I think the ASF tittle should be taken away when Rafale is possibly 0-3 but definitely 0-1.
Just for a moment, let's agree a missile was fired. The difference between the F-35 and a Rafale. One crashed, the other kept flying.You just pulled that claim stright out of you a** didn't you? Or were you privy AAR debriefing the F-35 pilot had?
Didn't they make a film about random and rajput? Dumb and Dumber
says the guy who can't count engines on a Yak 141.
I provided you the development history as written by the manufacturer themselves. You claimed the Rafale was "designed as an ASF" thats a pure fabrication on your part. Rafale was built and designed for Omnirole by the the French Air Force and Navy. and the link there even spells out all the required roles the airplane was designed to fill. ASF is only one aspect, and certainly not the main aspect.
you keep inventing and reinventing the definition LOL forgive us if we can't keep up.
ASF to you is basically just a code for "planes I like must be able to do ASF, so anything I like is ASF"
you have managed to confuse even yourself, the rest of us stand no chance!
stop trying to distract, mate LOL and you can't keep saying "There goes your argument" after you post something immaterial or an outright lie. The Yak 141 exists! There goes your argument that the F-35 is only production Mach capable STOVL aircraft!Btw, it seems Trump's announced a new jet to upgrade the F-35 with 2 engines. There go all your arguments.
Trump is pitching a new supercharged twin-engine F-35 with a new name: F-55
The CEO of Lockheed Martin, which makes the F-35, said recently that he wants to upgrade the jet to become a "fifth-generation plus" aircraft.
I'm sorry I cheated by going to Dassault website and posting it here to contradict things you just make up. good luck in your future goals of redefining words and altering history.
Rafale might be a good plane, but its fans are hardly helpful. Luckily Dassault is not as stupid as its lovers.
Dassault would be completely confused at the claim that the Rafale is an ASF plane. That is not what makes Rafale special. to focus on only ASF or claim it was designed as ASF is to leave 90 percent of the other features out, along with being fundamentally untrue.
I honestly don't know who you think you are fooling
Perhaps an omnirole aircraft is a multirole aircraft able to do ASF mission?
In fact, when we left the Eurofighter programme, we made the aircraft which, from our point of view, should have been European and the ASF aspect was important in this programme because it was the only thing that the British and Germans wanted.
Oh a missile was fired in the general direction of the F-35 the question is was the F-35 even tracked. F-35's "MAWS" which is EODAS is very sensitive and detected a launch and told the pilot to maneuver. The thing is the moment the F-35 gets painted its EW goes to work so I'm guessing Houthis used Saddam's Desert Storm tactics after F-117's dropped their bombs launching cold SAMs in hope they get lucky.
I just find it funny how desperate Rafale fanboys are after losing their fighter in air to air combat.
Are they suggesting an export NGAD? It sounds a similar concept.
You don't even read your own F-55 link.
" the president's comments in Qatar on Thursday appear to indicate continued support for the program. The F-35 is considered within the Defense Department to be a cornerstone of US airpower.
Last month, Lockheed CEO James Taiclet said that the defense firm would "supercharge" the F-35's capabilities to make it a "fifth-generation plus" aircraft that could bring it nearly on par with a sixth-generation fighter jet."
Having lost the comp. LM has their already funded and developed, 6th gen tech. That they can put on the F-35 as an upgrade.
Yup...
I think anything that can sustain 1.2mach+ is good enough.
As below 1.2mach is not sustainable.
Trump was talking about a minor upgrade to the F-35, but converting the F-35 into a twin-engine F-55. It's suggested that LM will use their NGAD experience to redevelop the F-35 into the F-55.
"The F-35, we're doing an upgrade — a simple upgrade — but we're also doing an F-55. I'm going to call it an F-55," Trump shared during a business roundtable in Qatar, the second stop in his Middle East tour.
"That's going to be a substantial upgrade," with two engines, Trump explained, "because an F-35 has a single engine; I don't like single engines." He then touted the four engines on a 747 because there's a backup if an engine goes out.
"We're going to do an F-55, I think, if we get the right price — we have to get the right price," the president said. "And that will be two engines and a super upgrade on the F-35."
As for what LM said...
"So, the F-35. So we're basically going to take the chassis and turn it into a Ferrari. It's like a NASCAR upgrade, so to speak," Taiclet said
He's obviously referring to a deep modernization. And Trump hints it will be the F-55.
I'm gonna LMAO along with a kidney if it turns out the F-55 will also become the USN's NGAD.
That has been my point all along...Perhaps an omnirole aircraft is a multirole aircraft able to do ASF mission?
its also been a point of confusion for both RandomRadio and all of RandomRadio's various personalities.
The Rafale was never "designed as an ASF" -- thats a lie easily debunked. after that he threw a fit and declared all the arguments over and people who can read a webpage as dumb
oh well, thanks for responding.
I have plenty of arguments left mate-- would you like to continue? stop putting words in everyone's mouths! I think you ran out of arguments the second I contradicted your obvious lie with the Dassault website, you suddenly stopped the constant drumbeat of lies. Since you are very confused I will reiterate. Air Superiority is a MISSION not a specific platform. Meaning that the Rafale can do Air Superiority, just like the F-35 can. and other multi-role or Omnirole aircraft can do this mission to. they will perform this mission with various advantages and disadvantages but the hard and fast rule of "can or cannot" is not only untrue, but you have proven that the criteria is every changing and arbitrary and based on personal opinion as to be utterly meaningless.
you fell into your own trap. You told everyone that an aircraft must be designed with certain characteristics to be ASF, and then when you realized the RAFALE didn't even fit YOUR OWN INVENTED CRITERIA, rather than change your mind you tried to change history!!
Have I got some good news for you.
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.
Oof. The Rafale has been designed with those characteristics.
In America, Russia, and China, an ASF is a jet that has only air-to-air capabilities. Most other countries want their ASFs to do other things too.
So the French designed the Rafale as an ASF, ie, the airframe. And then added other features to it in order to make it multirole.
Many "multirole" jets are based on a primary role and a secondary role. So the Su-30MKI and Rafale are primarily ASF designs with a secondary strike role. That's why they are considered multirole. But the F-35 is the opposite, it's primarily a strike fighter, with a secondary ASF role, so it can dogfight a bit.
So what you're talking about is a "dedicated ASF" like the F-15C with not a pound for air to ground. The Su-27 is the same. And so is the Typhoon, even the M2000. "Multirole" jets have some minor design changes that allow it to operate adequately at lower altitudes too, like the MKI and Rafale with close-coupled canards. But the basic design of these jets can still allow categorizaton as ASFs because that's what they really are.
Another example is the Mig-21. It's an ASF, but we put LGBs on it and turned it multirole. But it inherently is still an ASF. The LCA is the same.
And because the F-35 has been designed the other way, ie, a strike fighter designed to dogfight, it's been categorized as an F-35 instead of an A-35. If it couldn't dogfight, it would be called A-35.
yes. And this is precisely my point! Thank you.
The USAF has an extremely strict definition of Super Cruise.
the kind of "mach 1.2+" that is described as "super cruise" by imitators is not new. If so the USAF could claim all the teen fighters did that already in the 1970s. most all mach capable fighters can do this kind of "Super cruise" but it is not what the USAF was trying to create with the Advanced Tacitical Fighter Program that lead to the F-22. the ATF program wanted a kind of practical and serious sustainable Supercruise and not the kind of "if conditions are right!" gimmick.
its not to take away from Flankers or others, but we are talking about 2 different definitions that have been deliberately mixed up by marketing the world over
Rafale, Flanker, F-35, F-16, F-15, F-18, EF-2000, Gripen: We can all "supercruise" like the F-22!!
USAF: NOPE!!
as far as the USAF is concerned theyre all poor imitiations, even though people here see no distinction. it will be interesting when people have to explain that the USAF says that the F-35 is not air superiority by its definitions and critieria, but they will stop referencing the USAF when the USAF that their baby is also not air superiority because it can't actually super cruise either...
remember that super cruise in an F-22 is more fuel efficient than having to use the afterburner; however it is not the most optimal fuel consumption method which is still to be subsonic for optimal range. one of the compromises for the F-22 was the reduction of the fuel requirement from the original ATF. with this in mind the F-22 suffering when it comes to range. This is why, and Rajput I am not trying to change your mind but one of the reasons why the F-35 in terms of endurance has some advantages in the air to air role. F-22 is a sprinter, F-35 is a marathon runner. the race is approached differently, but they are still racers. its not as clear cut as many want to make it, and if they go with the USAF definition only the F-22 counts anyway so I assume the hybrid area would be more embraced
yup exactly F35 can do it over a dash (6-8mins) but not all the time.
While technically it may not be supercuising but thats good enough I think.
Personally I think F35s have a bigger problem
1. They are not Steath first fighter but are Stealth Only fighter. What I mean is stealth played such a big role in design that it undermined many other things. And that huge bet may actually not work out as well as envisioned in the long term because radars and tracking is evolving fast. SAM are evolving and are very cost effective.
2. We wont be able to integrate them in our Weapons envelope. They would run as entity which would undermine a lot of their capabilities.
Plus no indian weapons.
3. US is unreliable parner.
4. Cost.
Honestly I can only see Su57 coming our way at this point.
The way it does that. Turn on afterburner, cross the transonic regime, shut down AB, the jet stays at mach 1.2 for 150 miles 'cause of high lift. That's not supercruise.