Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

[Spitfire6]

Politics. Do anything to stand out.

false, but it fits well with your desire to define all things that don't fit your narrative as "marketing"

Oof. The Rafale has been designed with those characteristics.

no, LOL

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.

Stage of Grief: denial

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.

the Rafale was designed as ASF = nope!

Omnirole is just marketing...= Nope!

but the Rafale was designed first and foremost for ASF and then..= Nope!

Rafale is ASF it just does other things too= nope!

Well the basic design of these jets can still allow categorization as ASFs because...= nope!!

well even if it wasn't designed to, could we retroactively say...

Stage of Grief: Bargaining

 

[Spitfire6]

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.

its not supercruise, but the bad news is that is how most aircraft claim to be supercruisers: that is how most aircraft that are not F-22s define supercruise. You are also confused about the use of Afterburner so allow me to explain:

when punching through the soundbarrier even in an F-22 it is more Fuel efficient to use the afterburner to get through and then to throttle back to military power and "cruise"
the notion that no aferburner is used, is for people that have no idea how this is done, or how Super cruise is defined. or how the F-22 defines supercruise
most of the super cruise imitators do the same procedures the Super Cruising test Gripen of 2008. minimum weapons optimized for less drag (wingtip AAMs, no pylons), fly very high where the air is thinner. Afterburner, cut back, coast. press release claiming super cruise. its that easy!
nevermind that one of the big limiters for Supercruise beyond fuel is the engines and their design and there are serious problems with overheating. this something that like afterburner use is not something most people understand.

The F414 used by the Gripen was not at all designed for supercruise the way the F119 was. If theses engines that are not designed for supercruise are routinely used to do this, they will begin to have severe issues, not least of which is even without the afterburner, running engines at full throttle as a matter of routine is simply not viable as a standard operation it will wreck the engines. and shorten the TBO.

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.

Supercruise like the F-22 and its engines had to be backed into the design from the start especially when we start talking about the heat and sustainment questions. Most aircraft don't "accidently" supercruise. The MiG-31 was designed in a highly specific way to get its performance.
O'Bryan even admits the F-35 is not a supercruising aircraft technically which makes him more honest than most of the pretenders. which is perfectly fair. if one is going to say the F-22 is "true supercruise" then the F-35 aint it. however that means nothing else is F-22 either.

again the Rafale is not a designed super cruiser like the F-22 and its not a designed ASF either. its designed to be a omnirole, and its not at all designed to be a constant supercruise device. M88s are not designed for sustained supercruise and the M88 upgrade was designed to extend the life of the engines. Supercruising on the regular will undo that very quickly

 

[Spitfire6]

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.

I am not arguing that F-35 is the best option for India, arguing that I think the F-35 being too easily dismissed in a possible air to air only role and that the reasons for doing so were extremely convoluted

Honestly I can only see Su57 coming our way at this point.

I think this is the best option, but its not an easy option. Very few of them are being produced and there are many question marks around them even for Russia. There is no European F-35 or F-22 option.

 

[randomradio]

false, but it fits well with your desire to define all things that don't fit your narrative as "marketing"



no, LOL


Stage of Grief: denial



the Rafale was designed as ASF = nope!

Omnirole is just marketing...= Nope!

but the Rafale was designed first and foremost for ASF and then..= Nope!

Rafale is ASF it just does other things too= nope!

Well the basic design of these jets can still allow categorization as ASFs because...= nope!!

well even if it wasn't designed to, could we retroactively say...

Stage of Grief: Bargaining

With nothing to hang on to, now you're just reaching for anything to hold on to, while the US is sidelining the F-35 for the F-55.

 

[randomradio]

its not supercruise, but the bad news is that is how most aircraft claim to be supercruisers: that is how most aircraft that are not F-22s define supercruise. You are also confused about the use of Afterburner so allow me to explain:

when punching through the soundbarrier even in an F-22 it is more Fuel efficient to use the afterburner to get through and then to throttle back to military power and "cruise"
the notion that no aferburner is used, is for people that have no idea how this is done, or how Super cruise is defined. or how the F-22 defines supercruise
most of the super cruise imitators do the same procedures the Super Cruising test Gripen of 2008. minimum weapons optimized for less drag (wingtip AAMs, no pylons), fly very high where the air is thinner. Afterburner, cut back, coast. press release claiming super cruise. its that easy!
nevermind that one of the big limiters for Supercruise beyond fuel is the engines and their design and there are serious problems with overheating. this something that like afterburner use is not something most people understand.

The F414 used by the Gripen was not at all designed for supercruise the way the F119 was. If theses engines that are not designed for supercruise are routinely used to do this, they will begin to have severe issues, not least of which is even without the afterburner, running engines at full throttle as a matter of routine is simply not viable as a standard operation it will wreck the engines. and shorten the TBO.

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.

Supercruise like the F-22 and its engines had to be backed into the design from the start especially when we start talking about the heat and sustainment questions. Most aircraft don't "accidently" supercruise. The MiG-31 was designed in a highly specific way to get its performance.
O'Bryan even admits the F-35 is not a supercruising aircraft technically which makes him more honest than most of the pretenders. which is perfectly fair. if one is going to say the F-22 is "true supercruise" then the F-35 aint it. however that means nothing else is F-22 either.

again the Rafale is not a designed super cruiser like the F-22 and its not a designed ASF either. its designed to be a omnirole, and its not at all designed to be a constant supercruise device. M88s are not designed for sustained supercruise and the M88 upgrade was designed to extend the life of the engines. Supercruising on the regular will undo that very quickly

When you supercruise, you don't use the afterburner at all, in any phase of flight from subsonic cruise to supersonic cruise. The idea behind a supercruising engine is to breach the transonic regime without AB and without increasing your IR signature or fuel burn.

 

[Hydra]

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.

I do have respect on most of your posts,but why you are calling an aircraft an air superiority fighter when in reality it is not. An air superiority fighter,AFAIK is a relatively large fighter jet w.r.t the existing jets arund the world with higher capacity,higher flight ceiling, higher rate of climb,higher search & lock on range and higher g tolerance, higher range with decent weapon load. Rafale /EFT may satisfy few of theese characteristics ,but not all of them. As of now only three such air superiority fighter aircrafts existing in service ,ie F22,F15 & though i categories as mediocre the su27 and its variants barring su34. Indian need an air superiority figher along with Multi-Role inventory today, and will tomorrow too.

 

[randomradio]

I do have respect on most of your posts,but why you are calling an aircraft an air superiority fighter when in reality it is not. An air superiority fighter,AFAIK is a relatively large fighter jet w.r.t the existing jets arund the world with higher capacity,higher flight ceiling, higher rate of climb,higher search & lock on range and higher g tolerance, higher range with decent weapon load. Rafale /EFT may satisfy few of theese characteristics ,but not all of them. As of now only three such air superiority fighter aircrafts existing in service ,ie F22,F15 & though i categories as mediocre the su27 and its variants barring su34. Indian need an air superiority figher along with Multi-Role inventory today, and will tomorrow too.

The Rafale can accelerate faster than the F-15, can turn faster, can climb faster, can travel as far, can carry as many missiles... It can even supercruise. So what does not make it an ASF?

If you are going by Spitfire's posts, then I gotta clue you in on his ignorance. He has no idea what he's talking about.

To get an ASF, you need an airframe that's specifically been designed for supersonic operations and high G performance. Rafale can fly at mach 2, can supercruise at mach 1.3-1.4, and has 11G performance when subsonic. And it can carry a lot of missiles. It's a textbook definition of an ASF. With the exception of top speed, it exceeds both the F-15A/C and Su-27, and AB top speed is not necessary anymore for an ASF. And at 50% fuel, Rafale has the same TWR as both jets too, 1.2:1. The F-15C and Rafale have very similar fuel fraction, 0.32.

IAF requirements are also for ASFs with secondary strike capabilities. MKI, Mig-29, M2000, Rafale, LCA, and Mig-21 are all ASFs with secondary strike. AMCA as well.

Rafale's airframe has been designed as an ASF, but due to advancements in aerodynamic designs, it can even perform low-altitude strike missions and is an excellent dogfighter. So it's better than the F-15C and Su-27 at this as well.

Rafale has high ceiling as well. There was even a program to launch satellites using Rafale.

 

[_Anonymous_]

F-35 Had To Maneuver To Evade Houthi Surface-To-Air Missile: U.S. Official

The incident took place during Operation Rough Rider, the enhanced bombing campaign against the Houthis launched by Trump on March 15.

www.twz.com

You'd love this. I meant the article not the meme , sweetie . Ja ? @Innominate

 

[_Anonymous_]

How The Houthis' Rickety Air Defenses Threaten Even The F-35

Highly mobile Houthi SAM systems and ones that use passive infrared sensors present a vexing problem for even advanced U.S. combat aircraft.

www.twz.com

Here's another one from the same place where the previous article came from . Operation Rough Rider ended up with camel humpers rough riding the USN . Something you'd have loved if you were part of the USN. Still not too late to join the party sweetie . Ja ? @Innominate

 

[Spitfire6]

When you supercruise, you don't use the afterburner at all, in any phase of flight from subsonic cruise to supersonic cruise.

That is the dumbest way to do it because it burns fuel and takes longer and keeps you in the transonic zone longer. Even the F-22 uses the afterburner to punch through the sound barrier and then throttles back after about Mach 1.3.
You are confusing the entire thing.

The idea behind a supercruising engine is to breach the transonic regime without AB and without increasing your IR signature or fuel burn.

No, the purpose of super cruise is have the high speed without guzzling all the fuel with the CONSTANT need for an Afterburner. goose the burner to get through the barrier and then back off the throttle.

from 1999:
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFPN) -- The Air Force's next-generation air-superiority fighter flew at sustained speeds of greater than Mach 1.5 without afterburner, demonstrating for the first time one of its most important and advanced capabilities: the ability to "supercruise."
In the context of the F-22 Raptor, supercruise is defined as the ability to cruise at speeds of one and a half times the speed of sound or greater without the use of afterburner for extended periods in combat configuration. In fact, once operational, the F-22 will be able to fly large portions of its combat missions in supercruise mode, a key element to the aircraft's air dominance role.

"Sustaining the target Mach was not difficult for the Raptor," said Col. C.D. Moore, Combined Test Force commander, at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. "The difficulty was keeping the Raptor from going faster than the target speed. Yesterday the airplane demonstrated that it can achieve awesome speed, flying above 1.5 Mach at a low power setting, for a sustained period of time. No other fighter in the world can do that."

Moore flew yesterday's mission, piloting the first flight-test F-22 off the assembly line. He was pushed by Raptor 01's two powerful Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines to speeds greater than Mach 1.5 during a two hour flight over Edwards.

to define the bold section because it could use some punctuation help:
the ability to cruise at speeds of one and a half times the speed of sound or greater, without the use of afterburner for extended periods in combat configuration.

the "special part" is not "no afterburner" it is No Afterburner at Mach 1.5 or above which most aircraft can't achieve and aren't going to achieve with a USEFUL weapon or fuel load.

More:

"Mission 1" supersonic speed is at the program KPP THRESHOLD speed of Mach 1.6. I am going to assume that the actual supercruise KPP THRESHOLD is 900 kts (Mach 1.57) because actual speeds & distances are most commomy in knots & nautical miles, the rather than 'Mach number'.

Next to recognize/realize is that it is a mission radius so it includes an outgoing leg + 20 minutes of combat + a return leg. Which means that for the F-22, "Mission 1" is to (from take-off) fly 310nm @ Mach 0.9 [actually it is '500 kts' or Mach 0.87 but commonly rounded to Mach 0.9] + 100nm @ Mach 1.6 + 20 minutes of combat (which for most fighters includes use of afterburner - although given the F-22's high supercruise speed may not) and return to base (another 100nm @ Mach 1.6 + 310nm @ Mach 0.9). That is a total of 820nm (620nm @ Mach 0.9 + 200nm @ Mach 1.6) + 20 minutes of combat (also fair to say to be @ Mach 1.6 or at least at equal or higher throttle as when supercruising @ Mach 1.6).

The speed of sound is prety well constant throughout the Tropopause (~36,000-66,000') @ 660mph (573.5 kts). For those who are wondering, the now 'publicly official' supercruise speed of Mach 1.78 is thus 1174.8 mph or 1020.8 kts.

So that is 200nm @ 900 kts in ~13 1/3 minutes. Add the 20 minutes of combat & you get a "Mission 1" requirement of ~33 1/3 minute @ 900 kts and even at that the mission includes 72 minutes (620nm) @ 500 kts.

Summary:
F-22 definition of supercruise is very different than what you think Rafale Achieves. This is not matter of rocketing to 40,000 feet to burn up the fuel and get to the easier air before unloading and then pushing the throttles passed the barrier so you can fly for 10 minutes and declare "Supercruise"

What makes the F-22 supercruise different is being able to take a Useful combat load a solid distance, sustain "supercruise" at Mach 1.5 or more, with full weapons for a long duration to actual be useful for combat purposes for an actual impact. Supercruising with 4 AAMs to protect the nearby village before running out of fuel doesn't count. The required mission profile there specfically seperates the F-22 from the "pretenders"

We have F-22 Supercruise.
and we have imitator supercruise.

when F-22 did the F-22 supercruise and basically made it famous. all the imitators came out to say they do it too, and once one Eurocanard said they could supercruise, all the Eurocanards had to say the same or they would fall behind and look bad to their European friends and international tenders. its basically PR and most of the supercruise claims are very light on the details (range, duration, exact weapons, configuration etc. Most of them are not anywhere near the minimum Mach 1.5. Remember the F-22 can go as high as Mach 1.7 in supercruise but I've heard Mach 1.8

remember in the 2000s the F-22 was being fielded and Supercruise was super popular, and at the same time the European fighters, Gripen NG, Rafale, Typhoon were all in battles all over the globe for sales. whoever didn't "supercruise" looked weak, so they basically invented their own version and then sold it.

actual F-22 supercruise has to be baked in from the start. Supercruise was requirement of the ATF program. There is no requirement for supercruise on the Rafale or F-35 or anyone else, and that is that is because it has to have serious design considerations and expenses to make it happen and actually make it viable (as in the engines don't need to be constantly replaced) The whole reason the ATF program was even made possible was thanks to the advanced engines that specifically designed to supercruise which includes high tolerances for heat and extended use in high power settings.

The definition for the USAF version of Supercruise for the ATF that became F-22 is very different from what the pretenders claim. its extremely strict and well defined.

 

[Spitfire6]

I do have respect on most of your posts,but why you are calling an aircraft an air superiority fighter when in reality it is not. An air superiority fighter,AFAIK is a relatively large fighter jet w.r.t the existing jets arund the world with higher capacity,higher flight ceiling, higher rate of climb,higher search & lock on range and higher g tolerance, higher range with decent weapon load. Rafale /EFT may satisfy few of theese characteristics ,but not all of them. As of now only three such air superiority fighter aircrafts existing in service ,ie F22,F15 & though i categories as mediocre the su27 and its variants barring su34. Indian need an air superiority figher along with Multi-Role inventory today, and will tomorrow too.

This is the trench he has chosen to die in, no retreat! no matter how foolish!! He has become so enamored with the Rafale that he is lying on the internet with the idea that if he just does it enough, Rafale will morph into an ASF

The Rafale can accelerate faster than the F-15, can turn faster, can climb faster, can travel as far, can carry as many missiles...

Didn't the F-15 set all kinds of record in "time to climb"?

It can even supercruise.

nope!
you are either going to have to "Relax your requirements" on an ASF requireing super cruise in order to get the Rafale in, or keep the requirement and watch the Rafale fail by your own measure.

So what does not make it an ASF?

because it doesn't even fit your own criteria for an ASF. its a multi role fighter, and the only way it "supercruises" is if we redeifne the whole concept. On that note, an F-15 will also "Super cruise" like a Rafale if we use that same definition, espeically if the 4 AAMs the F-15s carry are conformal on the fuselage.

if we can use the "Cheat" version of Super cruise lots of aircraft can do that. a CF-5 can do that in the 1960s. so you are basically "stuck"
The Rafale can't do what an F-22 can using the USAF definition
but the Rafale can do the fake version just like everyone else (including the F-35) which means Rafale is no more "special" than anything else.

If you are going by Spitfire's posts, then I gotta clue you in on his ignorance.

I literally quoted Dassault, the company that makes the Rafale... You are now trying to convince a fighter that everyone agrees is Multirole/Omnirole, including the Indian Air Force that the Rafale is actually an ASF.
The funny part of this, and there are many funny parts indeed! is that in trying to say "a rafale is secretly an ASF, just because its multirole doesn't mean it can't be ASF" you are actually propogating the notion that multirole fighters can be ASF-- unless its an F-35!!!
the lynchpin of your entire arguement is the Rafale supercruises, when you have no idea what that even means, and for someone who always talks about "propoganda, marketing, politics" you sure fell for the obvious with the claim of "Supercruise"
your post make it clear that you don't really know what it is or how it works or the design and other factors that go into supercruise.

To get an ASF, you need an airframe that's specifically been designed for supersonic operations and high G performance. Rafale can fly at mach 2, can supercruise at mach 1.3-1.4, and has 11G performance when subsonic. And it can carry a lot of missiles. It's a textbook definition of an ASF. Rafale's airframe has been designed as an ASF, but due to advancements in aerodynamic designs, it can even perform low-altitude strike missions and is an excellent dogfighter. So it's better than the F-15C and Su-27 at this as well.

this is extremely ignorant of you and even insulting to the Rafale, Dassault and the French. Let me explain. When the requirements for the what becaome the Rafale arrived they were considered by many to be nearly impossible. A lot of care and genious went into the Rafale to make it as good as it is, in so many different areas. That did not happen accident. you don't "luck" into making an ASF and then it magically did all these other things really well too. It took an incredible amount of work to create a fighter that was so good in so many roles.
to design the Rafale as an ASF, when the requirement was never for an ASF ever in the history of the program would mean nothing more than to have to redesign the entire thing over and over again for every task that was added.
In order to make the Rafale work at all, Dassault had to have full knowledge of all requirements. In order to land on a ship the airframe would need to be stronger than a "not a pound for air to ground" machine. In order to launch bombs or heavy cruise missiles, the airframe would have to be made strong from the start. The size and the shape of the Rafale is dictated by its myriad requirements.
Dassault didn't just make an ASF and the retroactively throw extra crap on to make it fit the requirements. That is so ridiculous about your entire argument.
if you went to dassault and explained to them why they secretly designed an ASF they would laugh. "dont you see? what makes the Rafale special is that it does many things! that was the whole point!"
Youre completely ignorant of some of the most basic things. France didn't build an ASF with the Rafale. if the Rafale was supposed to be an ASF it would be very different, because requirements dictate design choices.
its downright disrespectful.
I don't know what your obsession is with trying to make the Rafale an ASF. Its a multirole fighter and everyone knows it. Picdel came in and said the same, Dassault says, its classified as Multi-role fighter, it won india MULTIROLE fighter competition.

you seem to have personal hang-up that multirole is a downgrade and ASF is the best so your goal is to now defy all common sense and try to make the Rafale into something it never was, and never ever will be.

the omnirole for the Rafale is what makes it great. this is like taking your computer and using it to break rocks. Yes your computer can be used to smash rocks-- but it can be far more useful in other areas and NO IT was never "designed" to break rocks!! Yes a computer can be used to break rocks, but that is not what computers are for, and keep it up and eventually it breaks-- because it was never DESIGNED to do that.

If you want to have a conversation where we compare various aspects of performance that is different. but what you did was say "here is a list and its pass/fail" and then yuo declared the Rafale "passed" even when the Rafale fails by your own criteria:

The Rafale does not super cruise
The Rafale was never "designed" to be an "ASF" because that would mean a requirements failure.
The Rafale could never be turned into an ASF first and then other roles added later. OMNIROLE was baked in from the start by French Requirements
The reason you have such a hard time conceeding this, is because accepting the Rafale for what it is would mean that its dangerously close to your loathed F-35 in terms of a multirole fighter desinged to replace multiple types and comparable in physical performance.

France has every reason to proud of Rafale and they certainly are. The Rafale does many missions very well, and is the best European fighter. it does many jobs better than its competitors in multiple facets. that didn't happen by accident, and it was not the result of "making an ASF" and then throwing in the ability to drop bombs it would never work if that was attempted, and it would fail the requirements.

RandomRadio, you fell into your own trap! You said that the F-35 can't be ASF because it was never designed to be that way. when you realized oops! the Rafale was never designed to be ASF either, you had to start lying and inventing to make the Rafale fit your invented standard. Why not just change your standard instead of trying to shoehorn Rafale backwards? because that would invite the F-35 in.
ha! but the Rafale Supercruises and the F-35 does not! The Rafale doesn't supercruise according to the USAF who are the same people you say can't be argued with and the same people who say F-35 isn't supercruise for the same reason.

you are trapped by your own mouth

 

[randomradio]

That is the dumbest way to do it because it burns fuel and takes longer and keeps you in the transonic zone longer. Even the F-22 uses the afterburner to punch through the sound barrier and then throttles back after about Mach 1.3.
You are confusing the entire thing.




No, the purpose of super cruise is have the high speed without guzzling all the fuel with the CONSTANT need for an Afterburner. goose the burner to get through the barrier and then back off the throttle.

from 1999:
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFPN) -- The Air Force's next-generation air-superiority fighter flew at sustained speeds of greater than Mach 1.5 without afterburner, demonstrating for the first time one of its most important and advanced capabilities: the ability to "supercruise."
In the context of the F-22 Raptor, supercruise is defined as the ability to cruise at speeds of one and a half times the speed of sound or greater without the use of afterburner for extended periods in combat configuration. In fact, once operational, the F-22 will be able to fly large portions of its combat missions in supercruise mode, a key element to the aircraft's air dominance role.

"Sustaining the target Mach was not difficult for the Raptor," said Col. C.D. Moore, Combined Test Force commander, at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. "The difficulty was keeping the Raptor from going faster than the target speed. Yesterday the airplane demonstrated that it can achieve awesome speed, flying above 1.5 Mach at a low power setting, for a sustained period of time. No other fighter in the world can do that."

Moore flew yesterday's mission, piloting the first flight-test F-22 off the assembly line. He was pushed by Raptor 01's two powerful Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines to speeds greater than Mach 1.5 during a two hour flight over Edwards.

to define the bold section because it could use some punctuation help:
the ability to cruise at speeds of one and a half times the speed of sound or greater, without the use of afterburner for extended periods in combat configuration.

the "special part" is not "no afterburner" it is No Afterburner at Mach 1.5 or above which most aircraft can't achieve and aren't going to achieve with a USEFUL weapon or fuel load.

More:

"Mission 1" supersonic speed is at the program KPP THRESHOLD speed of Mach 1.6. I am going to assume that the actual supercruise KPP THRESHOLD is 900 kts (Mach 1.57) because actual speeds & distances are most commomy in knots & nautical miles, the rather than 'Mach number'.

Next to recognize/realize is that it is a mission radius so it includes an outgoing leg + 20 minutes of combat + a return leg. Which means that for the F-22, "Mission 1" is to (from take-off) fly 310nm @ Mach 0.9 [actually it is '500 kts' or Mach 0.87 but commonly rounded to Mach 0.9] + 100nm @ Mach 1.6 + 20 minutes of combat (which for most fighters includes use of afterburner - although given the F-22's high supercruise speed may not) and return to base (another 100nm @ Mach 1.6 + 310nm @ Mach 0.9). That is a total of 820nm (620nm @ Mach 0.9 + 200nm @ Mach 1.6) + 20 minutes of combat (also fair to say to be @ Mach 1.6 or at least at equal or higher throttle as when supercruising @ Mach 1.6).

The speed of sound is prety well constant throughout the Tropopause (~36,000-66,000') @ 660mph (573.5 kts). For those who are wondering, the now 'publicly official' supercruise speed of Mach 1.78 is thus 1174.8 mph or 1020.8 kts.

So that is 200nm @ 900 kts in ~13 1/3 minutes. Add the 20 minutes of combat & you get a "Mission 1" requirement of ~33 1/3 minute @ 900 kts and even at that the mission includes 72 minutes (620nm) @ 500 kts.

Summary:
F-22 definition of supercruise is very different than what you think Rafale Achieves. This is not matter of rocketing to 40,000 feet to burn up the fuel and get to the easier air before unloading and then pushing the throttles passed the barrier so you can fly for 10 minutes and declare "Supercruise"

What makes the F-22 supercruise different is being able to take a Useful combat load a solid distance, sustain "supercruise" at Mach 1.5 or more, with full weapons for a long duration to actual be useful for combat purposes for an actual impact. Supercruising with 4 AAMs to protect the nearby village before running out of fuel doesn't count. The required mission profile there specfically seperates the F-22 from the "pretenders"

We have F-22 Supercruise.
and we have imitator supercruise.

when F-22 did the F-22 supercruise and basically made it famous. all the imitators came out to say they do it too, and once one Eurocanard said they could supercruise, all the Eurocanards had to say the same or they would fall behind and look bad to their European friends and international tenders. its basically PR and most of the supercruise claims are very light on the details (range, duration, exact weapons, configuration etc. Most of them are not anywhere near the minimum Mach 1.5. Remember the F-22 can go as high as Mach 1.7 in supercruise but I've heard Mach 1.8

remember in the 2000s the F-22 was being fielded and Supercruise was super popular, and at the same time the European fighters, Gripen NG, Rafale, Typhoon were all in battles all over the globe for sales. whoever didn't "supercruise" looked weak, so they basically invented their own version and then sold it.

actual F-22 supercruise has to be baked in from the start. Supercruise was requirement of the ATF program. There is no requirement for supercruise on the Rafale or F-35 or anyone else, and that is that is because it has to have serious design considerations and expenses to make it happen and actually make it viable (as in the engines don't need to be constantly replaced) The whole reason the ATF program was even made possible was thanks to the advanced engines that specifically designed to supercruise which includes high tolerances for heat and extended use in high power settings.

The definition for the USAF version of Supercruise for the ATF that became F-22 is very different from what the pretenders claim. its extremely strict and well defined.

There's nothing in there that says the F-22 uses afterburner to go supersonic and then cuts down the AB to stay at supersonic speeds.

Supercruise means you never use the afterburner at any stage from subsonic to supersonic in level flight. Rafale also does not use AB, and it does carry weapons while supercruising.

Fine, mabye the F-22 uses AB to get to supercruise as you say, and the Rafale doesn't. How about that?

But you are trying to change the definition just to win an Internet argument. Why don't you ask around at the very least?

Supercruise capable planes:
Gerfaut - mach 1.05
F-104 with J79 - mach 1.05
English Electric Lightning - mach 1.2

Concorde - mach 2.04

Funny thing about the Concorde.
Afterburners were added to Concorde to meet its take-off thrust requirement and were not necessary for supersonic cruise.

So why did the F-22 downgrade? But I suppose as the developers of Concorde, the French supercruise is more advanced and does not need to use AB at all.

So did the F-22 downgrade, or are you just being your clueless self here?

Funny how your arguments are a** backwards.

 

[Spitfire6]

Why? Are the US going to buy Rafale?

everytime the F-35 wins the French grumble about "politics," but the main selling point for the Rafale is politics: the Americans can't put you on the naughty list.

Welcome back.

I'll repeat the statement as my previous post here again.

"No high altitude, no supercruise, no AS missions for you. If anyone assigns you one, then you're on a suicide mission."

Altiitude: The Rafale and the F-35 have the same ceiling-- well below the F-22.
Supercruise: The Rafale does not supercruise and neither does the F-35 -- well below the F-22 Standard.

by your REPEATED standard, the Rafale is not an Air Superiority fighter, and would be on a suicide mission.
Bonus:
The F-35 can't be an ASF because it was never designed to be ASF: The Rafale was never designed as an ASF either-- the F-22 was designed as an ASF, if we want to get technical it is not an ASF it is "Air dominance" which is considered even higher than an ASF, but why run up the score?
we are now in the embarrassing phase where some attempt to explain that even though the Rafale capabilities put it on a "suicide mission" but its still somehow an ASF(!) because it has invented capabilities in order to make it fit
"here are the things that are necessary to make an ASF, no the Rafale doesn't have them, but I am going to say Rafale is an ASF anyway"

I know the same poster will continue to attempt to redefine words and reality, but to summarize:
USAF/ATF/F-22 requirements: sustainable Mach 1.5 or more without Afterburner carrying a full combat load (8 AAM+cannon)
Dassault, Saab, etc requirement: Break mach 1 with some AAMS.

They are different standards.
when the USAF says the F-35 can't supercruise and thus can't be an ASF, the USAF would also say the same about the Rafale. Dassault and others get around this by lowering the standard for what "counts" as Threshold
This is how we have RandomRadio telling us the F-35 can't supercruise (LM can't make such a claim by USAF standards) But Dassault who is not beholden to the US, can lower the threshold and claim "Supercruise" and then RR can take this double standard and attempt to claim the F-35 can't be ASF, while the Rafale can be by using a different standard.

Aircraft back in the 1960s could do the "above mach 1 with some weapons" too. It was not anything new. The reason that it is never mentioned back then is because everyone understood that it was basically useless. a novelty. above mach 1 with no afterburned was not really sustainable for any notable duration. Using the afterburner to stay above Mach 1 burned so much fuel as to basically destroy range and was cosigned for emergency or defensive use like airfield defense.


The F-22 made Supercruise a real viable tactic, and the mach 1.5 requirement put it well above the "break the barrier" version
When the F-22 made supercruise "Famous" everyone then had to "reinvent" the same thing that was useless in the 1970s, always available but never used because its not viable in the real world. as I explained once one country decided to make Supercruise a "thing" everyone else had to find a way to say they could do it too or they would fall behind.

RR has basically 3 choices:
He can "adjust" or change the "make or break" rules he made for an ASF in order to include the Rafale
he Can keep the Rules and realize the Rafale doesn't make meet the standards
He can basically just lie and get "creative" by keeping the same standards and just lying, redefining, retroactivey changing history to make the Rafale fit.

I would much prefer to have a conversation over the first choice where we judge the merits of each aircraft based on their actual specs and not quotes from generals as "proof" understanding that although the f-35 and Rafale and many others are not ASF aircraft, they still have capabilities that allow them to still do Air Superiority as a MISSION.

 

[randomradio]

This is the trench he has chosen to die in, no retreat! no matter how foolish!! He has become so enamored with the Rafale that he is lying on the internet with the idea that if he just does it enough, Rafale will morph into an ASF

So you're saying the Rafale is a strike jet but can still surpass the F-15C in its AS role?

If you wanna say it's multirole, then Rafale has been designed for a primary role, which is it?

Didn't the F-15 set all kinds of record in "time to climb"?

Non-militarized, modified for performance. Su-27 holds the climb record.

I literally quoted Dassault, the company that makes the Rafale... You are now trying to convince a fighter that everyone agrees is Multirole/Omnirole, including the Indian Air Force that the Rafale is actually an ASF.
The funny part of this, and there are many funny parts indeed! is that in trying to say "a rafale is secretly an ASF, just because its multirole doesn't mean it can't be ASF" you are actually propogating the notion that multirole fighters can be ASF-- unless its an F-35!!!
the lynchpin of your entire arguement is the Rafale supercruises, when you have no idea what that even means, and for someone who always talks about "propoganda, marketing, politics" you sure fell for the obvious with the claim of "Supercruise"
your post make it clear that you don't really know what it is or how it works or the design and other factors that go into supercruise.

The ominrole definition came about because the Rafale could do multiple missions at the same time. Today the general word for that is swing role. American and Russian jets couldn't do that. The first "omnirole" American jet is the F-35, still not ready. Today it's a generic capability so it's not meaningless as a marketing term. By the time Egypt, India, and Qatar ordered the Rafale, it had become a common feature.

According to BAE Systems, "an aircraft that can accomplish both air-to-air and air-to-surface roles on the same mission and swing between these roles instantly offers true flexibility. This reduces cost, increases effectiveness and enhances interoperability with allied air forces".
Otoh, a general multirole aircraft has to land and be reprogrammed for a specific role, whereas the Rafale can do that in flight at the flick of a switch. It was a pretty amazing feature back then. The Eurocanards were the first to get this capability.

A "swing-role" jet, or swing-role combat aircraft, is a multirole fighter aircraft designed to perform both air-to-air and air-to-surface roles within the same mission, switching between them as needed.

The Gripen is a "swing-role" aircraft, meaning it can switch between different missions at the push of a button. It's a multi-role combat aircraft capable of air superiority, air-to-ground, and air-to-air reconnaissance missions. The human-machine interface adapts to the chosen role, optimizing for the specific mission profile.

this is extremely ignorant of you and even insulting to the Rafale, Dassault and the French. Let me explain. When the requirements for the what becaome the Rafale arrived they were considered by many to be nearly impossible. A lot of care and genious went into the Rafale to make it as good as it is, in so many different areas. That did not happen accident. you don't "luck" into making an ASF and then it magically did all these other things really well too. It took an incredible amount of work to create a fighter that was so good in so many roles.
to design the Rafale as an ASF, when the requirement was never for an ASF ever in the history of the program would mean nothing more than to have to redesign the entire thing over and over again for every task that was added.
In order to make the Rafale work at all, Dassault had to have full knowledge of all requirements. In order to land on a ship the airframe would need to be stronger than a "not a pound for air to ground" machine. In order to launch bombs or heavy cruise missiles, the airframe would have to be made strong from the start. The size and the shape of the Rafale is dictated by its myriad requirements.
Dassault didn't just make an ASF and the retroactively throw extra crap on to make it fit the requirements. That is so ridiculous about your entire argument.
if you went to dassault and explained to them why they secretly designed an ASF they would laugh. "dont you see? what makes the Rafale special is that it does many things! that was the whole point!"
Youre completely ignorant of some of the most basic things. France didn't build an ASF with the Rafale. if the Rafale was supposed to be an ASF it would be very different, because requirements dictate design choices.
its downright disrespectful.
I don't know what your obsession is with trying to make the Rafale an ASF. Its a multirole fighter and everyone knows it. Picdel came in and said the same, Dassault says, its classified as Multi-role fighter, it won india MULTIROLE fighter competition.

you seem to have personal hang-up that multirole is a downgrade and ASF is the best so your goal is to now defy all common sense and try to make the Rafale into something it never was, and never ever will be.

the omnirole for the Rafale is what makes it great. this is like taking your computer and using it to break rocks. Yes your computer can be used to smash rocks-- but it can be far more useful in other areas and NO IT was never "designed" to break rocks!! Yes a computer can be used to break rocks, but that is not what computers are for, and keep it up and eventually it breaks-- because it was never DESIGNED to do that.

If you want to have a conversation where we compare various aspects of performance that is different. but what you did was say "here is a list and its pass/fail" and then yuo declared the Rafale "passed" even when the Rafale fails by your own criteria:

The Rafale does not super cruise
The Rafale was never "designed" to be an "ASF" because that would mean a requirements failure.
The Rafale could never be turned into an ASF first and then other roles added later. OMNIROLE was baked in from the start by French Requirements
The reason you have such a hard time conceeding this, is because accepting the Rafale for what it is would mean that its dangerously close to your loathed F-35 in terms of a multirole fighter desinged to replace multiple types and comparable in physical performance.

France has every reason to proud of Rafale and they certainly are. The Rafale does many missions very well, and is the best European fighter. it does many jobs better than its competitors in multiple facets. that didn't happen by accident, and it was not the result of "making an ASF" and then throwing in the ability to drop bombs it would never work if that was attempted, and it would fail the requirements.

RandomRadio, you fell into your own trap! You said that the F-35 can't be ASF because it was never designed to be that way. when you realized oops! the Rafale was never designed to be ASF either, you had to start lying and inventing to make the Rafale fit your invented standard. Why not just change your standard instead of trying to shoehorn Rafale backwards? because that would invite the F-35 in.
ha! but the Rafale Supercruises and the F-35 does not! The Rafale doesn't supercruise according to the USAF who are the same people you say can't be argued with and the same people who say F-35 isn't supercruise for the same reason.

you are trapped by your own mouth

That's a lot of words you don't understand. You should focus on more reading than writing.

Rafale's AS performance is better than dedicated ASFs like the F-15C and Su-27, but is not an ASF. And Rafale's strike performance is better than purposely designed strike jets like the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet, but is not a strike fighter. So which is it?

And Rafale demonstrated supercruise in 1990 after the installation of the new M88s. Typhoon could too. So LM changed supercruise to mach 1.5+. Welcome to marketing. I won't be surprised if the Russians come out and say mach 2 is where it's at.

Anyway, the Rafale...

Wayback Machine

It can climb to 40,000 feet in under two minutes and accelerate very rapidly to supersonic speed. More significantly, it can supercruise in dry power, even with four missiles and a belly droptank.

 

[Spitfire6]

There's nothing in there that says the F-22 uses afterburner to go supersonic and then cuts down the AB to stay at supersonic speeds.

that is correct, there is also nothing in there that says the pilot needs to wear a helmet when flying an F-22 but they still do that.

Supercruise means you never use the afterburner at any stage from subsonic to supersonic in level flight. Rafale also does not use AB, and it does carry weapons while supercruising.

a common misconception.

The purpose of Supercruise is not "look ma! no afterburner!!" The purpose of supercruise is to maintain well above mach 1 without the afterburner, in order to maintain speed without burning fuel.
How you get there is immaterial ; staying there with no afterburner to the "trick"

Fine, mabye the F-22 uses AB to get to supercruise as you say, and the Rafale doesn't. How about that?

The Rafale is stupidly wasting fuel then to satisfy what you think should happen. you don't understand much about supercruise or it purposes.

But you are trying to change the definition just to win an Internet argument.

If Only I had that power. The F-22 supercruise is defined by the USAF standard back in the 1980s. The definition you and Dassault adopted was the coping mechanism adopted by the companies that couldn't do F-22 supercruise in the 2000s.
You are 100 percent correct that there are 2 standards, that is my whole point. I did not set the standards. not the F-22 version, or the coping mechanism/salesman version.
I'm only informing you of the standards I'm not trying to "win an internet arguement" I posted reality both from the US ATF program and Dassaults own website.
as you pretend to be smart and logical based on facts and reason I will remind you that these are facts even when you don't like them.
I apologize that my ability to google surpasses yours. in the 2000s Supercruise was debated to death on various forums none of this new.

Why don't you ask around at the very least?

Supercruise capable planes:
Gerfaut - mach 1.05
F-104 with J79 - mach 1.05
English Electric Lightning - mach 1.2

this is my exact point. nothing new about the "non-Raptor" version of Supercruise.
2 standards. F-22 standard. imitation standard.
easy text. its not complicated.

Concorde - mach 2.04

Funny thing about the Concorde.
Afterburners were added to Concorde to meet its take-off thrust requirement and were not necessary for supersonic cruise.

the concorde isn't a warplane and has 4 engines. congrats on that observation though. fun fact that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. why are we bringing up the concorde in a conversation about ASF other than a weak attempt to try and save face?

So why did the F-22 downgrade?

its not a "downgrade" its common sense LOL
you have misunderstood the subject from the beginning and are now trying to play "got you!" on a subject you don't even comprehend.
once again. There is this thing called the "sound barrier" when going into "supercruise" it is easier to use the afterburner to go through it in order to save fuel later on. Everyone does it this way.
It can be done the other way, but that takes more time and costs more fuel. I would argue that many aircraft that are in the "non Raptor" version of Supercruise would struggle to do it without the Afterburner.

nobody with knowledge of the subject considers it a "Cheat" to use the Afterburner to move through the barrier. its common sense. You continue to insist Rafale pilots lack common sense. spellbinding.

But I suppose as the developers of Concorde, the French supercruise is more advanced and does not need to use AB at all.

yes its the kind of "more advanced supercruise" where you waste fuel and fly slower. bonus points for bringing the air superiority concorde

So did the F-22 downgrade,or are you just being your clueless self here?

Using the afterburner is not a "downgrade" you never understood the definition to begin with. an F-22 can get past Mach 1.5 without the afterburner, but why? it takes longer and burns fuel. Theyre not concerned with what an ignorant fool on the internet considers a "downgrade" while promoting a fighter that can't even supercruise at the F-22s level to begin with in any configuration.
The Rafale is free to use the afterburner and no doubt it did in Dassaults example. it would be foolish not to and Dassault are not fools.
you're argument currently is "if theyre so smart, why aren't they foolish like me?"

Funny how your arguments are a** backwards.

youre literally explaining to us that the Rafale wastes excess fuel in order to fly slower than the F-22 and calling Rafale superior.

 

[randomradio]

the concorde isn't a warplane and has 4 engines. congrats on that observation though. fun fact that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. why are we bringing up the concorde in a conversation about ASF other than a weak attempt to try and save face?

Ah, so more engines means more supercruise. Simple mind, simple answer.

So you're saying Concorde breaks your rules of physics?

As I said, you should ask around. If you are willing to waste time here, there should be some pilots in the holes you frequent around the Internet.

 

[Spitfire6]

So you're saying the Rafale is a strike jet but can still surpass the F-15C in its AS role?

are we ready to have a different conversation devoid of your silly rules that not even the Rafale meets?

If you wanna say it's multirole, then Rafale has been designed for a primary role, which is it?

the primary role of the Rafale was to meet the requirements of the French Air Force and Navy.

Non-militarized, modified for performance. Su-27 holds the climb record.

not the Rafale?

The ominrole definition came about because the Rafale could do multiple missions at the same time. Today the general word for that is swing role. American and Russian jets couldn't do that. The first "omnirole" American jet is the F-35, still not ready. Today it's a generic capability so it's not meaningless as a marketing term. By the time Egypt, India, and Qatar ordered the Rafale, it had become a common feature.

According to BAE Systems, "an aircraft that can accomplish both air-to-air and air-to-surface roles on the same mission and swing between these roles instantly offers true flexibility. This reduces cost, increases effectiveness and enhances interoperability with allied air forces".
Otoh, a general multirole aircraft has to land and be reprogrammed for a specific role, whereas the Rafale can do that in flight at the flick of a switch. It was a pretty amazing feature back then. The Eurocanards were the first to get this capability.

A "swing-role" jet, or swing-role combat aircraft, is a multirole fighter aircraft designed to perform both air-to-air and air-to-surface roles within the same mission, switching between them as needed.

The Gripen is a "swing-role" aircraft, meaning it can switch between different missions at the push of a button. It's a multi-role combat aircraft capable of air superiority, air-to-ground, and air-to-air reconnaissance missions. The human-machine interface adapts to the chosen role, optimizing for the specific mission profile.

this is just circle talk.

Rafale's AS performance is better than dedicated ASFs like the F-15C and Su-27, but is not an ASF.

we agree Rafale is not an ASF. we have finally come full circle and you have talked yourself in so many circles that you admit what everyone already said pages ago. congrats.

And Rafale demonstrated supercruise in 1990 after the installation of the new M88s.

again you are redefining supercruise. did the 1990 prototype carry a useful combat load? have full avioinics?
you keep trying to confuse and muddle definintions.

So LM changed supercruise to mach 1.5+.

youre attempting to change history again. Remember that the ATF program set the requirements and standards for Supercruise in the 1980s. In the early 1990s Northrop and Lockeed competed with the YF-23 and YF-22. the Standard was set before the downselect contract was ever awarded.
you are once again trying to call basic fact "marketing" to say nothing of the fact that the standard is still currently in use with the USAF. your trying to say LM invented the standard as marketing. the Standard was set before LM was even awarded the attempt to win ATF.

Welcome to marketing. I won't be surprised if the Russians come out and say mach 2 is where it's at.

I guess that will make the Rafale look even slower

Anyway, the Rafale...

Wayback Machine

It can climb to 40,000 feet in under two minutes and accelerate very rapidly to supersonic speed. More significantly, it can supercruise in dry power, even with four missiles and a belly droptank.

very good visiting wikipedia!
we have already covered this several times already.
by your own words:
official ATF requirements= marketing
Supercruise as written in a dassault sales brochure=supercruise.
OK!
RandomRadio standards:
1. Anything marketing I agree with is Truth
2. any Truth I dislike is Marketing!
3. call everyone else backwards

 

[Spitfire6]

Ah, so more engines means more supercruise. Simple mind, simple answer.

is it a simple mind that confuses an airliner for a warplane?

So you're saying Concorde breaks your rules of physics?

I'm saying you changed the subject by bringing in an airliner. what is the "useful combat load" of the concorde? which military air force flew it?
this is desperate. pointing to the Concorde as an exception proves the rule BTW.

As I said, you should ask around. If you are willing to waste time here, there should be some pilots in the holes you frequent around the Internet.

lots of people on this very forum including picdel and others are telling you that you have gone off the reservation. you have literally had to resort to the concorde an not only that you have once again focused on a detail of the arguement rather than the original subject:
remember, you are attempting to prove to us that the Rafale supercruises so it can be an ASF like the F-22. not trying to prove that the concorde doesn't need afterburners

 

[randomradio]

are we ready to have a different conversation devoid of your silly rules that not even the Rafale meets?

Are we ready to deal with actual engineering?

this is just circle talk.

Just say you don't get it.

again you are redefining supercruise. did the 1990 prototype carry a useful combat load? have full avioinics?
you keep trying to confuse and muddle definintions.

Why would it carry payload in its first flight? Is this your level of argument?

youre attempting to change history again. Remember that the ATF program set the requirements and standards for Supercruise in the 1980s. In the early 1990s Northrop and Lockeed competed with the YF-23 and YF-22. the Standard was set before the downselect contract was ever awarded.
you are once again trying to call basic fact "marketing" to say nothing of the fact that the standard is still currently in use with the USAF. your trying to say LM invented the standard as marketing. the Standard was set before LM was even awarded the attempt to win ATF.

Supercruise was defined as mach 1+ long before the existence of ATF.

very good visiting wikipedia!
we have already covered this several times already.
by your own words:
official ATF requirements= marketing
Supercruise as written in a dassault sales brochure=supercruise.
OK!

No, we haven't. You don't even know what supercruise is.

As I said, ask around.

 

[randomradio]

is it a simple mind that confuses an airliner for a warplane?

So how's Concorde performing this magic supercruise that the Rafale can but F-22 cannot?

I'm saying you changed the subject by bringing in an airliner. what is the "useful combat load" of the concorde? which military air force flew it?
this is desperate. pointing to the Concorde as an exception proves the rule BTW.

Ah, so different rules of physics for Concorde?

lots of people on this very forum including picdel and others are telling you that you have gone off the reservation. you have literally had to resort to the concorde an not only that you have once again focused on a detail of the arguement rather than the original subject:
remember, you are attempting to prove to us that the Rafale supercruises so it can be an ASF like the F-22. not trying to prove that the concorde doesn't need afterburners

If Rafale is multirole, what is its primary design based on?

If Rafale can perform better than the F-15C at AS roles and better than the SH at strike, what role should we classify it as? Or should we put it in a whole new category? This is such a simple question.