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

[randomradio]

Official USAF website:

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104506/f-22-raptor/

Primary function: air dominance, multi-role fighter

Official AFA website:

F-22 Raptor Archives | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The F-22 is a stealthy, penetrating, air dominance, and multirole fighter built for day, night, and adverse weather, full-spectrum operations. The prototype YF-22 first flew as part of USAF’s Advanced Tactical Fighter competition on Sept. 29, 1990, followed by the flight of the first F-22 test...

www.airandspaceforces.com

The F-22 is a stealthy, penetrating, air dominance, and multirole fighter built for day, night, and adverse weather, full-spectrum operations.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Rafale has the kinematics of an ASF as it was designed to kill Su-27 just like EF & F-22. But to fulfil deck-based role DA had to make its nose-cone smaller than usual. That small radar size is its only drawback as an ASF.

Official USAF website:

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104506/f-22-raptor/

Primary function: air dominance, multi-role fighter

Official AFA website:

F-22 Raptor Archives | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The F-22 is a stealthy, penetrating, air dominance, and multirole fighter built for day, night, and adverse weather, full-spectrum operations. The prototype YF-22 first flew as part of USAF’s Advanced Tactical Fighter competition on Sept. 29, 1990, followed by the flight of the first F-22 test...

www.airandspaceforces.com

The F-22 is a stealthy, penetrating, air dominance, and multirole fighter built for day, night, and adverse weather, full-spectrum operations.

That's why they added the suffix A. So it became F-22A. A is for attack.

 

[Spitfire6]

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

We are talking about warplanes, you literally brought in a competely different subject to "prove" something that does not matter.

as I said. if somone chooses to "Supercruise" without using the afterburner to punch through the barrier, they can choose to do that. its just inefficient and stupid and so most fighters (including the French who are not stupid) will do that way.

you keep insisting to us that the Rafale does it the stupid way because you consider it a badge of honor?

While a lot of people are paid by Dassault to promote their products I think you may be the first person that Dassault would pay to NOT talk about their products...

Ah, so different rules of physics for Concorde?

its crazy how I can write the same thing 4 times and you still can't figure it out.

Official USAF website:

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104506/f-22-raptor/

Primary function: air dominance, multi-role fighter

Official AFA website:

F-22 Raptor Archives | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The F-22 is a stealthy, penetrating, air dominance, and multirole fighter built for day, night, and adverse weather, full-spectrum operations. The prototype YF-22 first flew as part of USAF’s Advanced Tactical Fighter competition on Sept. 29, 1990, followed by the flight of the first F-22 test...

www.airandspaceforces.com

The F-22 is a stealthy, penetrating, air dominance, and multirole fighter built for day, night, and adverse weather, full-spectrum operations.

???

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.

do you actually want to have a conversation instead of trying to bring airliners into the equation to prove a misconception you internalized?

serious question. What happened was it would be very interesting and enlightening to discuss the various attributes of fighters and their capability in the Air Superiority mission.

you didn't want to do that though, you made a bunch of rules (anything else was suicide, you said it twice) and then realized the Rafale couldn't meet them

If Rafale can perform better than the F-15C at AS roles

this is exactly my point. The F-35 isn't AS, yet it can easily kill and beat an F-15C which is an ASF. So what does that mean? the F-35 is better than an ASF but not an ASF? what does that mean?
you dismissed the whole thing by making arbitrary standards for an ASF and then figured out the Rafale couldn't meet them. LOL

I know you can count 2 can't you?
so here it is once again:
There is USAF F-22 supercruise that has a highly specific defintion
And there there is the other kind of "supercruise" which is the "break the soundbarrier with some AAMS" type that is not operationally useful.
since the F-35 and the Rafale fall into the "not F-22" category maybe its time to talk about how everyone compares instead of you trying to invent reasons why the Rafale is somehow supercruising like the F-22 so you can define it as an "ASF" that no one else, not even the manufacturer defines it as.

 

[Spitfire6]

Rafale has the kinematics of an ASF as it was designed to kill Su-27 just like EF & F-22. But to fulfil deck-based role DA had to make its nose-cone smaller than usual. That small radar size is its only drawback as an ASF.

That's why they added the suffix A. So it became F-22A. A is for attack.

very breifly (You can still find it online in some places) the F-22 was classified in the US navy style of F/A-22. they changed it back pretty quickly. The idea of the change was to try and make the F-22 more marketable to American government because the end of the cold war meant there were not really any airplane to shoot down so F-22 must also show ability to bomb.
No one officially describes Rafale as an ASF, that would be considered a "downgrade" as an ASF is easier to create than what Dassault had to do with the Rafale. Treating a sophisticated machine as if it was a hammer. Granted yes, everything can be hammer if you try. but that is not what is designed to be, and too much use a "hammer" in this case deciding to max out the engines to "supercruise" is not healthy for the aircraft and long term prospects of the cost and readiness of the fleet. a Rafale can pull 11Gs but that does not mean that such a thing should be done routinely, its bad for the lifespan of the aircraft. there is a difference between maximum specifications and practicality. F-22s will fly in supercruise as a matter of daily operations. Rafales should not, and neither should any other of the "not F-22s" with the exceptions of MiG-31 but I admit I don't know enough about MiG-31 to comment more.

 

[randomradio]

We are talking about warplanes, you literally brought in a competely different subject to "prove" something that does not matter.

as I said. if somone chooses to "Supercruise" without using the afterburner to punch through the barrier, they can choose to do that. its just inefficient and stupid and so most fighters (including the French who are not stupid) will do that way.

you keep insisting to us that the Rafale does it the stupid way because you consider it a badge of honor?

While a lot of people are paid by Dassault to promote their products I think you may be the first person that Dassault would pay to NOT talk about their products...


its crazy how I can write the same thing 4 times and you still can't figure it out.

Dunno, you tell me. Is Concorde's supercruise determined by physics? Why is it, as you believe, the F-22's supercruise significantly inferior to Concorde's?

???

F-22 isn't an ASF too, if the USAF is to be believed.

do you actually want to have a conversation instead of trying to bring airliners into the equation to prove a misconception you internalized?

serious question. What happened was it would be very interesting and enlightening to discuss the various attributes of fighters and their capability in the Air Superiority mission.

you didn't want to do that though, you made a bunch of rules (anything else was suicide, you said it twice) and then realized the Rafale couldn't meet them

I point out all the qualities of the Rafale's performance to determine it is an ASF. You neither understand it nor are you trying to understand it.

If the Rafale is superior to the F-15 in its ASF role, then why is it not an ASF?

this is exactly my point. The F-35 isn't AS, yet it can easily kill and beat an F-15C which is an ASF. So what does that mean? the F-35 is better than an ASF but not an ASF? what does that mean?
you dismissed the whole thing by making arbitrary standards for an ASF and then figured out the Rafale couldn't meet them. LOL

That means the F-15 sucks now. Even the SH can deliver this result.

A Growler killed the F-35, does that make the Growler superior to the F-35?

I don't think you are unable to relate complex things with each other due to your ignorance.

As I said, ask around. You refuse to get schooled here, then try it with people you trust elsewhere. This is pretty much the most logical course of action for you. Why waste time with this big circle-jerk when you can get educated elsewhere? And then, come back and pick it up?

I know you can count 2 can't you?
so here it is once again:
There is USAF F-22 supercruise that has a highly specific defintion
And there there is the other kind of "supercruise" which is the "break the soundbarrier with some AAMS" type that is not operationally useful.
since the F-35 and the Rafale fall into the "not F-22" category maybe its time to talk about how everyone compares instead of you trying to invent reasons why the Rafale is somehow supercruising like the F-22 so you can define it as an "ASF" that no one else, not even the manufacturer defines it as.

So what makes Concorde and Rafale's supercruise different from the F-22's? If you can't answer, then ask around. It's such a simple task.

 

[Spitfire6]

Are we ready to deal with actual engineering?

like how the Rafale was engineered from the start to be omnirole? that it has never in its history ever been described as "air superiority, multi-role" like you are insisting?

F-22 isn't an ASF too, if the USAF is to be believed.

True its techinically air dominance. ITs still described in such a way. Rafale has never had any such description.

Why would it carry payload in its first flight?

it wouldn't and since we are talking about a "USEFUL COMBAT LOAD" its immaterial. you continue to bring things into the arguement that are not on the subject

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

remember that we are talking about the context of Supercruise in relation to a fighter being an ASF. if you are going to bring the F-22 into the debate, the F-22 has a different definition than anyone else. this is important because only the F-22 definition was being applied to the F-35 while the Rafale was allowed to get away with its own definition and you considered this "definitive proof" once that was spoiled you started changing the subject in an attempt to "win"
I'm not upset at all because this is a common tactic that women employ and I am familiar with the tactics you are employing. knock yourself out

You need to make up your mind.

If the Rafale is superior to the F-15 in its ASF role, then why is it not an ASF?

this is what I asked with the F-35 and you brought up supercruise and general hostage. General Hostage said the F-35 is no ASF, but General hostage along with Dassault would tell you that Rafale is not ASF

Hostage would take it one step further and tell you that the Rafale can't supercruise and thus by the USAF standard is incapable of fulfilling such a role.

you insist that not using the USAF standard means Rafale can supercruise, but by such a definition so can the F-35, and you even saw this yourself and commented.

So the USAF version of supercruise should be equally applied or equally disqualifying. what you are doing is using the USAF version to disqualify the F-35, and the Dassault version (which the F-35 could do) in order to qualify the Rafale.

in summary: the F-35 and Rafale are both not ASF or ASF depending on what you decide to count, however they should be counted the same either way you choose.

F-35 beat F-15 = means nothing ,not ASF
Rafale beats F-15 = OMG Rafale is ASF!!

Rather than look at what the Rafale/F-35 "are" or "are not"

why not look at what they can DO or NOT DO and then from there make a kind of classification?

you dismiss the F-35 on the first concept but promote the Rafale on the second concept. What I was saying all along was that the second concept is what we should be looking at.

especially as we look at Air superiority as a MISSION and not as an identity

 

[Spitfire6]

You don't even know what supercruise is.

starts linking to Wikipedia with examples as he finally tries to learn-- uses concorde in conversation about combat aircraft.

 

[randomradio]

like how the Rafale was engineered from the start to be omnirole? that it has never in its history ever been described as "air superiority, multi-role" like you are insisting?

True its techinically air dominance. ITs still described in such a way. Rafale has never had any such description.

Fleet of 36 Rafale jets will be a game changer for India: Experts

NEW DELHI: The Rafale jets, known globally as one the most potent strategic platforms with unmatched capability in carrying out a variety of roles, will signifi

www.newindianexpress.com

The Rafale jets will give the IAF superior air dominance capability," the former IAF chief told PTI.

remember that we are talking about the context of Supercruise in relation to a fighter being an ASF. if you are going to bring the F-22 into the debate, the F-22 has a different definition than anyone else. this is important because only the F-22 definition was being applied to the F-35 while the Rafale was allowed to get away with its own definition and you considered this "definitive proof" once that was spoiled you started changing the subject in an attempt to "win"
I'm not upset at all because this is a common tactic that women employ and I am familiar with the tactics you are employing. knock yourself out

What is the difference between Concorde's supercruise without AB and your supposed F-22 supercruise with AB?

Looks like I gotta spell it out...

You need to make up your mind.

Why not both?

To be an ASF in the modern world, you need to be able to beat the F-15C's kinematics and be able to kill the F-15C with your kinematics and avionics. What's wrong with that? Gotta have both. And Rafale can do both.

this is what I asked with the F-35 and you brought up supercruise and general hostage. General Hostage said the F-35 is no ASF, but General hostage along with Dassault would tell you that Rafale is not ASF

Hostage would take it one step further and tell you that the Rafale can't supercruise and thus by the USAF standard is incapable of fulfilling such a role.

What's Hostage got to do with this? He doesn't consider F-35 to be an ASF, that's already been established. No supersonic performance, no high altitude performance...

you insist that not using the USAF standard means Rafale can supercruise, but by such a definition so can the F-35, and you even saw this yourself and commented.

No, even the guy who claimed the F-35 can supercruise said it's not supercruise.

So the USAF version of supercruise should be equally applied or equally disqualifying. what you are doing is using the USAF version to disqualify the F-35, and the Dassault version (which the F-35 could do) in order to qualify the Rafale.

The F-22 supercruises without AB. The F-35 uses AB and then turns it off. Rafale supercruises without AB. Concorde supercruises without AB, even that's established. So I don't see the confusion here.

in summary: the F-35 and Rafale are both not ASF or ASF depending on what you decide to count, however they should be counted the same either way you choose.

F-35 is not ASF, but Rafale is. It has supersonic performance, supercruise, and high altitude capabilities.

F-35 beat F-15 = means nothing ,not ASF
Rafale beats F-15 = OMG Rafale is ASF!!

And if Growler beats the F-22? Does that make Growler an ASF? Where's the kinematics?

Rather than look at what the Rafale/F-35 "are" or "are not"

why not look at what they can DO or NOT DO and then from there make a kind of classification?

you dismiss the F-35 on the first concept but promote the Rafale on the second concept. What I was saying all along was that the second concept is what we should be looking at.

especially as we look at Air superiority as a MISSION and not as an identity

Using avionics to kill and using kinematics and avionics to kill is the real difference between the F-35 and Rafale resply in the AS role.

What makes Rafale ASF is it actually flies better than the F-15 and combines that with some of F-35's avionics while doing it. And it flies better than the SH in the strike role and combines that with some of the F-35's avionics too. And omnirole means it can do both functions simultaneously.

The F-22, NGAD, and Rafale are AS designs with secondary strike capabilities. That's reality. And all three can supercruise like the Concorde.

You are still not ready to believe this, as I said, ask around and get schooled.

 

[Innominate]

Fleet of 36 Rafale jets will be a game changer for India: Experts

NEW DELHI: The Rafale jets, known globally as one the most potent strategic platforms with unmatched capability in carrying out a variety of roles, will signifi

www.newindianexpress.com

The Rafale jets will give the IAF superior air dominance capability," the former IAF chief told PTI.



What is the difference between Concorde's supercruise without AB and your supposed F-22 supercruise with AB?

Looks like I gotta spell it out...



Why not both?

To be an ASF in the modern world, you need to be able to beat the F-15C's kinematics and be able to kill the F-15C with your kinematics and avionics. What's wrong with that? Gotta have both. And Rafale can do both.



What's Hostage got to do with this? He doesn't consider F-35 to be an ASF, that's already been established. No supersonic performance, no high altitude performance...



No, even the guy who claimed the F-35 can supercruise said it's not supercruise.



The F-22 supercruises without AB. The F-35 uses AB and then turns it off. Rafale supercruises without AB. Concorde supercruises without AB, even that's established. So I don't see the confusion here.



F-35 is not ASF, but Rafale is. It has supersonic performance, supercruise, and high altitude capabilities.



And if Growler beats the F-22? Does that make Growler an ASF? Where's the kinematics?



Using avionics to kill and using kinematics and avionics to kill is the real difference between the F-35 and Rafale resply in the AS role.

What makes Rafale ASF is it actually flies better than the F-15 and combines that with some of F-35's avionics while doing it. And it flies better than the SH in the strike role and combines that with some of the F-35's avionics too. And omnirole means it can do both functions simultaneously.

The F-22, NGAD, and Rafale are AS designs with secondary strike capabilities. That's reality. And all three can supercruise like the Concorde.

You are still not ready to believe this, as I said, ask around and get schooled.

And General "Hawk" says the F-35 will give the USAF and USN air superiority.

Btw a reminder once again the mighty ASF Rafale is claim to be 0-3 in air combat but definitely 0-1.

 

[randomradio]

And General "Hawk" says the F-35 will give the USAF and USN air superiority.

Yes, except it won't.

Bothered to look up the F-55?

 

[Spitfire6]

Fleet of 36 Rafale jets will be a game changer for India: Experts

NEW DELHI: The Rafale jets, known globally as one the most potent strategic platforms with unmatched capability in carrying out a variety of roles, will signifi

www.newindianexpress.com

The Rafale jets will give the IAF superior air dominance capability," the former IAF chief told PTI.

if you are going to count this there are scores of generals all over who say the F-35 is the best airplane in the world, so its cool.

To be an ASF in the modern world, you need to be able to beat the F-15C's kinematics and be able to kill the F-15C with your kinematics and avionics.

That is not what you claimed earlier...
I wonder what changed...

What's Hostage got to do with this? He doesn't consider F-35 to be an ASF, that's already been established. No supersonic performance, no high altitude performance..

Because Hostage would say the same thing about the Rafale, but you omit that part and claim the opposite. The Rafale is not an F-22 either and that was Hostage's measure.

No, even the guy who claimed the F-35 can supercruise said it's not supercruise.

by USAF standard= not supercruise

By "above mach 1" with some weapons-- yes F-35 can do that. remember tThere is no qualification on the time, duration, distance etc of the "dassault supercruiser" we just know above mach 1. 4 AAMs dry thrust. anyone can do that, an F-16 can do that, a Gripen can do that.
Remember in the quote O'brien mentions the F-35 going above mach 1 helps with the BOMBS meaning it is Dassault supercruising with thousands of kilos of bombs.
so now you are going to have to tell us how the F-35 can supercruise just like the Rafale in the same parameters, but it doesn't count when the F-35 does it. but it totally counts when the Rafale does the same thing.

"No the F-35 can't do it because I don't like it!!" is not an argument.

The F-22 supercruises without AB. The F-35 uses AB and then turns it off. Rafale supercruises without AB. Concorde supercruises without AB, even that's established. So I don't see the confusion here.

it really doesn't matter. no one cares if you use the AB to punch through the barrier except for weirdos on Indian defense forums who want to impress French men and think they are secretly smart. heavy emphasis on the secret part because its certainly well hidden.

F-35 is not ASF, but Rafale is. It has supersonic performance, supercruise, and high altitude capabilities.

by the same measure the F-35 is ASF. You continue to play a game where the F-35 does the same thing but you say "No because F-35! and Yes because I love Rafale!!"

Using avionics to kill and using kinematics and avionics to kill is the real difference between the F-35 and Rafale resply in the AS role.

a kill is a kill. the point is effectiveness. this is why I called into question your entire framework.

The F-22, NGAD, and Rafale are AS designs with secondary strike capabilities. That's reality.

The Rafale was never DESIGNED as an AS, this is confirmed directly by the manufacturer. they would have no idea why you would make such a claim and would assume you are confused

And all three can supercruise like the Concorde.

So unarmed?

The Rafale can't even supercruise like an F-22. that is the whole point, and "ask around" I'm not the only here on this thread explaining it.
"You need to ask around and learn a thing" says person being corrected by everyone on the thread...

we aren't even sure if the Rafale is the best fighter in the IAF, let alone the silly things you are trying to claim.

You are still not ready to believe this, as I said, ask around and get schooled.

you still seem to be the only one persisting, even picdel has politely corrected you...

And General "Hawk" says the F-35 will give the USAF and USN air superiority.

Yes, except it won't.

Bothered to look up the F-55?

ah the double standard. General's are credible authorities until one of them says something Randomradio doesn't want to hear...

 

[Innominate]

Yes, except it won't.

Bothered to look up the F-55?

So now you know more than a USAF General? You're delusional.

WTF does a non existing aircraft that was pitched by LM to Orange man who likes shinny objects when pitched by so-called experts have to do with F-35's air dominance? His first term he hated the F-35 and then they told him its capabilities and after that he loves the F-35. Some LM shmuck who is butt hurt that they lost the F-47 to Boeing tells the president about a two engine F-35 and the president says good idea. So? It still doesn't change the fact that the USAF and USN strongly believes the F-35 will dominate and have air supremacy against near peer air forces unlike Rafale who is 0-3 in air combat.

 

[Spitfire6]

To be an ASF, you need high speed and high altitude.

so the F-35 counts awesome.

The IAF Chief isn't trying to market it or sell it to others.

you used a dassault sales brochure as a primary source.

Doubt that.

yes, because the F-35 is not an F-22 to him and the Rafale isn't either. we aren't even sure if the Rafale is the most dominant fighter in the IAF, to the Americans it won't even be entertained as an F-22 match.

Even the guy who claimed it said it's not supercruise.

by F-22 standards it is not. and he would say the same thing about the Rafale too, its technically not supercruise. compare:


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.

#1 according to RandomRadio:

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

so the F-35 would certainly qualify as a Supercruiser according to: RandomRadio.

More proof:
#2

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

by this standard you don't even need weapons to count as Supercruise! Source: RandomRadio

Now that we have established that according to RandomRadio the F-35 supercruises! so it is just as qualified to be ASF as the Rafale!

#3:

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.

Did Dassault give us a speed for this example. NO
Did Dassault specify duration? No
Weapons? Yes. 4AAM and a Drop Tank.

now lets compare with F-35:
give us a speed? Yes
Specfiy duration Yes
Weapons? Bombs are mentioned and we can assume then that the F-35 is flying its usual measure of 2X 2000 poung bombs, and 2 AMRAAM

just running up the score of course, since supercruise counts even when unarmed. Source: RandomRadio.

clearly the F-35 fits the standard of Dassault Supercruise. dry power and weapons above the soundbarrier. F-35 counts!

"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."

just to preempt the inevitable whining:

No one cares if you use an afterburner to ACCELERATE into supercruise. in fact that is the SMART way to do it to save fuel in a FIGHTER.
Once past the sound barrier the measure of Supercruise is SUSTAINED speed with the afterburner off. for the F-22 all these things are specific for the Rafale= Dassault never tells us of course. the F-35 clearly meets the Dassault and RandomRadio critiera for Supercruise.
if know you have a hard time telling these things apart so I am trying to be very helpful.

RandomRadio, by your own words the F-35 supercruises and this puts it on par with the Rafale by your own measure, and thus elevated it into the same ASF conversation. if F-35 "Supecruise" does not count, neither does the Rafale or any of the other aircraft you told us about. Ironically we got far more detail and disclosure

conclusion: F-35 is a supercruiser, just like the Rafale, though neither are the F-22.

The F-35 supercruises by 3 seperate RandomRadio Standards:
1. Mach 1.2 well above the Supercruise examples RandomRadio gave us
2. Unarmed like the prototype Rafale
3. The F-35 can perfectly emulate the same (very cryptic) Supercruise example of the Rafale from the Dassault example

So the F-55 isn't around anymore?

Why a twin-engine F-35?

What did the USAF figure out that I have figured out and you didn't?

youre even bad at trolling.

 

[randomradio]

So now you know more than a USAF General? You're delusional.

WTF does a non existing aircraft that was pitched by LM to Orange man who likes shinny objects when pitched by so-called experts have to do with F-35's air dominance? His first term he hated the F-35 and then they told him its capabilities and after that he loves the F-35. Some LM shmuck who is butt hurt that they lost the F-47 to Boeing tells the president about a two engine F-35 and the president says good idea. So? It still doesn't change the fact that the USAF and USN strongly believes the F-35 will dominate and have air supremacy against near peer air forces unlike Rafale who is 0-3 in air combat.

So why did the Pentagon refuse to take deliveries of the F-35 for a year?

 

[randomradio]

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.

according to RandomRadio:

"not technically a "supercruising" aircraft,"

so the F-35 would certainly qualify as a Supercruiser according to: RandomRadio.

More proof:

If you use AB, then you don't supercruise.

What the F-35 does is akin to you taking off your foot off the gas on a slope when driving a car.

Did Dassault give us a speed for this example. NO
Did Dassault specify duration? No
Weapons? Yes. 4AAM and a Drop Tank.

Yes. Mach 1.4.

No one cares if you use an afterburner to ACCELERATE into supercruise.

Everybody does except you. Or it defeats the purpose.

 

[Spitfire6]

"not technically a "supercruising" aircraft,"

but according to you it is in your own words!

If you use AB, then you don't supercruise.

lets use you own example again :


John Britton, the Chief Engineer on Concorde, told how the powerful Rolls Royce/Snecma engines could throw passengers back in their seats under the force of the thrust – not unlike the memorable 1978 Cinzano advert featuring Leonard Rossiter and Joan Collins – when Joan’s seat flops backwards, forcing her to spill her drink down her dress.

Standing in Aerospace Bristol museum, pointing at a turbine on display, he said: “That is the reheat system which is lit up on take-off and for transonic acceleration. It boosts the thrust of the engine from about 28,000 pound thrust to about 36,000 with the reheat on.

“It’s a significant increase in the thrust. When they put the reheats on when you’re taking off, you feel it, it makes you go back in your seat. And you can feel it again when you go supersonic.

“But they only switch them on two at a time when it’s going supersonic to make sure the passengers don’t spill their drinks.”

Concorde Chief Engineer John Britton showing the reheat system
The Concorde is famous for making it possible for the elite to drink Cristal in the clouds while travelling across the Atlantic faster than the speed of sound.

It is less known that like many inventions at the cutting edge of engineering the engine of the “pocket rocket” has military roots.

The Olympus engine that allowed the Concorde to break the sound barrier is based on those employed in the RAF's Avro Vulcan strategic bomber.

The Vulcan along with Handley Page Victor and Vickers Valiant comprised the UK’s strategic nuclear strike force.

The origin of the Olympus engine is intertwined in cold war history and competition.

According to John Britton the Concorde was the only aircraft that was ever certificated with reheat that boost the thrust up to accelerate it transonic to Mach 1.



Edit: Reheat is Afterburner Transonic = Mach 1 and or the sound barrier. wanted let the whole concorde thing go because it doesn't fit the subject but you were being so obnoxious about it...

What the F-35 does is akin to you taking off your foot off the gas on a slope when driving a car.

supercruise has to be in level flight so your analogy doesn't work. Also when driving a car the sound barrier is not a factor (oh no I should not have said that, you are now going to post those Rocket cars in Utah!!)

for the 5th time. Using the Afterburner to ACCELERATE past the soundbarrier is not 'Cheating" its common sense, because the alternative is wasting time and fuel. and the whole point of supercruise is to save time and fuel

By insisting the Rafale does it the dumb way, it makes the rafale look dumb. its not the winning arguement you think, Its the dumbest way to do it. so naturally you think that is the way the Rafale does it.

Yes. Mach 1.4.

can you post that source as well?

Everybody does except you. Or it defeats the purpose.

you still don't understand the purpose of the key factor you say makes an ASF

 

[Innominate]

So why did the Pentagon refuse to take deliveries of the F-35 for a year?

Why don't you tell me. I know why but my guess of your answer is going to be much different from the reality.

 

[randomradio]

but according to you it is in your own words!



lets use you own example again :


John Britton, the Chief Engineer on Concorde, told how the powerful Rolls Royce/Snecma engines could throw passengers back in their seats under the force of the thrust – not unlike the memorable 1978 Cinzano advert featuring Leonard Rossiter and Joan Collins – when Joan’s seat flops backwards, forcing her to spill her drink down her dress.

Standing in Aerospace Bristol museum, pointing at a turbine on display, he said: “That is the reheat system which is lit up on take-off and for transonic acceleration. It boosts the thrust of the engine from about 28,000 pound thrust to about 36,000 with the reheat on.

“It’s a significant increase in the thrust. When they put the reheats on when you’re taking off, you feel it, it makes you go back in your seat. And you can feel it again when you go supersonic.


Concorde Chief Engineer John Britton showing the reheat system
The Concorde is famous for making it possible for the elite to drink Cristal in the clouds while travelling across the Atlantic faster than the speed of sound.

It is less known that like many inventions at the cutting edge of engineering the engine of the “pocket rocket” has military roots.

The Olympus engine that allowed the Concorde to break the sound barrier is based on those employed in the RAF's Avro Vulcan strategic bomber.

The Vulcan along with Handley Page Victor and Vickers Valiant comprised the UK’s strategic nuclear strike force.


According to John Britton the Concorde was the only aircraft that was ever certificated with reheat that boost the thrust up to accelerate it transonic to Mach 1.



Edit: Reheat is Afterburner Transonic = Mach 1 and or the sound barrier. wanted let the whole concorde thing go because it doesn't fit the subject but you were being so obnoxious about it...


supercruise has to be in level flight so your analogy doesn't work. Also when driving a car the sound barrier is not a factor (oh no I should not have said that, you are now going to post those Rocket cars in Utah!!)

for the 5th time. Using the Afterburner to ACCELERATE past the soundbarrier is not 'Cheating" its common sense, because the alternative is wasting time and fuel. and the whole point of supercruise is to save time and fuel

By insisting the Rafale does it the dumb way, it makes the rafale look dumb. its not the winning arguement you think, Its the dumbest way to do it. so naturally you think that is the way the Rafale does it.



can you post that source as well?


you still don't understand the purpose of the key factor you say makes an ASF

Okay, let's assume you are right and move on.

Rafale:

 

[Innominate]

La Tribune newspaper said yesterday quoting CEO of Safran, Philippe Petitcolin that, the engine upgrade in terms of thrust was necessary as the Rafale had grown heavier over the years due to addition of weapons and other systems.

He said that the original thrust of the Rafale engine was the same since the launch of the French fighter. The Rafale was designed over two decades ago.

Safran Plans Engine Upgrade For Dassault Rafale Fighter Jet

French company Safran, which manufactures the M88 engine of the Dassault Rafale fighter aircraft plans to increase its thrust from 7.5 tone to nine tons. La Tribune newspaper said yesterday quoting CEO of Safran, Philippe Petitcolin that, the engine upgrade in terms of thrust was necessary as...

www.defenseworld.net

So delusional Rafale fanboys: Even though Rafale has gotten much heavier with no thrust upgrade it can super cruise mach 1.4 with ordinance. Lol.

Lets see... Rafale's top speed is mach 1.8 clean configuration and that was Rafale A model which was very light weight.... no wonder the Rafale performed horrid in air combat against export version of J-10, a down graded version.

 

[randomradio]

Why don't you tell me. I know why but my guess of your answer is going to be much different from the reality.

Dunno. I asked you first.