Rafale RB of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions

Tatvamasi

Senior member
Jan 5, 2018
1,191
1,221
India
Rafale is not underpowered. Hell, the IAF doesn't consider the M2000 to be underpowered, and the Rafale beats the M2000 by a very wide margin. Rafale pilots speak of how they have to throttle down in order to not overshoot the M2000 during dog fights. Plus it can supercruise, can't do that without adequate thrust.

Anyway, all engines have the potential to undergo a 5-10% thrust upgrade through modifications to the existing engine, which is meant to cater to the jet's growth by the time it hits MLUs. Meaning an engine upgrade that's expected to happen during MLU is a scheduled upgrade. Deliverance here wants to create false equivalence with the F-35, which doesn't just need an engine upgrade but a whole new engine with a 30% boost in thrust just to be relevant.

Companies also like to push for engine upgrades because they can make more money. Engine upgrades happen when the airframe OEM or the air force ask for it, not when the engine OEM demands it. Which is why the article also says: "However, the upgrade issue had not been discussed with Dassault Aviation, the Safran CEO added." Only time will tell whether the F4 will come with an uprated engine. But that's only a natural evolution of the jet.

If Dassault meets IN's carrier requirements with the same engine next year, then the AF version doesn't need a thrust upgrade.
Oh, you missed the part where Frenchie asked the same question about the new engine for F-35.

Anyway, UAE definitely asked for high thrust so there you have it.
 

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,348
1,061
France
I do believe the Euro Fighter has a better engine than the Rafale.
Not specially.
The EJ200 is designed for high altitude and high mach air to air mission. It has a higher thrust but the plane is heavier also. EJ200 is a SNECMA M53 engine with newer technologies.
M88 is designed for multimission : it has to be efficient in high and low level flight. It's a compromise, so probably less efficient than EJ200 in high altitude but better in medium and low level flight.

The difference of climbing speed of EF2000 and Rafale is tiny. The official max speed of EF2000 only 0,2 mach above Rafale, and in real life not used because of frame problems. The range of Rafale is >> EF2000 one.
 

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,348
1,061
France
India stopped at 36 french planes and likely will be the final number.
My poor WHOHE..... You will be wrong in a couple of months.
So many BS in one single mouth, it's nearly incredible.
Anyway, all engines have the potential to undergo a 5-10% thrust upgrade through modifications to the existing engine, which is meant to cater to the jet's growth by the time it hits MLUs. Meaning an engine upgrade that's expected to happen during MLU is a scheduled upgrade. Deliverance here wants to create false equivalence with the F-35, which doesn't just need an engine upgrade but a whole new engine with a 30% boost in thrust just to be relevant.
The last version of M88 offers two possibilities :
-Increase the life span and reduce the owner cost = The french army choice.
-Increase the thrust. It is unclear what choice was made by Qatar for exemple....
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,957
10,948
India
Oh, you missed the part where Frenchie asked the same question about the new engine for F-35.

Not the same though. The equivalent would be 2035-40 for the F-35, which was the original time period for when the F-35 was to get a new engine. If the USAF wants the new engine by 2027, then it's obvious there are issues with the current engine. Even before the F-35 is fully operational, they are talking about a new engine. That's not normal.

Anyway, UAE definitely asked for high thrust so there you have it.

They just wanted to stand out as the only operator of the then new ECO engine. No different from their F-16 B60. It doesn't seem to be an informed opinion since they later backed out of it. Anyway, the Arabs don't buy jets using sound judgement, they base their decisions on politics. You should read up on how the Shah of Iran chose the F-14 over the F-15, it's hilarous.
 

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,229
796
California
Not the same though. The equivalent would be 2035-40 for the F-35, which was the original time period for when the F-35 was to get a new engine. If the USAF wants the new engine by 2027, then it's obvious there are issues with the current engine. Even before the F-35 is fully operational, they are talking about a new engine. That's not normal.
Yes it is normal. F-35 pilots, who are the only ones who know if the F-35 is underpowered, always boast about the F-135's power. USAF is always looking for better capabilities on all their weapon systems and if an already outstanding performing fighter can get better with an upgrade than the USAF wants it. It doesn't mean that its current capabilities is somehow underpowered or less capable.

F135 engine in the scale of 1 to 10, ten being the best, is a 10 when it comes to fighter engines and if P&W or GE says we're making an engine that will put in an 11 or 12 ranking giving the F-35 better range than its already excellent range the USAF is going to want it. That simple.


@2:30 "You can take off fully loaded without afterburner"
It's definitely not underpowered like many dopes in here like to believe. The french plane can't take off with with two 2,000lb bombs, two BVR missiles and 18,000lbs of fuel without using its afterburner.

@7:55 he talks about during exercise where F-15C and F-15E's, F-15E's having greater range than french plane, have to refuel and F-35 don't.

So lets cut the crap about f-135 engine being underpowered to deflect from the real underpowered fighter like the french plane that has gotten heavier but still has the same engine it has been using for 20+ years.

Remember....
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.
 

AbRaj

Senior member
Dec 6, 2017
2,490
1,827
Republic of Wadiya
Please do not resort to personal attacks and name calling.
WHOHE may have some serious attitude problems but his posts usually have some substance to back his assertions.
People calling F35 underpowered, should look at other contemporary 4th gen fighters before mocking a fifth gen fighter which is amongst the jets with highest TWR like Su 30, M29, F16, Rafale etc.
And it’s even less significant for survival of a fifth gen multirole fighter like F35 compared to those Fourth gen fighters.
It doesn’t need that high TWR anyway thanks to its large internal weapons bays giving it lower drag coefficient while carrying combat load , unlike those fourth gen ‘aerodynamic designs’ which loose all its aerodynamic advantages as soon as they attach any significant weapon load.
So their superior aerodynamics is only advantageous ( vs F22/F35/J20) to do air shows and not in actual combat.
And to top it all, GE and PW has experience and resources to come up with even higher thrust variants before any of their competitors can complete even preliminary design studies.
 

AbRaj

Senior member
Dec 6, 2017
2,490
1,827
Republic of Wadiya
Even F35B and C are not that far behind. But they do need some increase in TWR to match other Deck based fighters like M29KUBs and F18 and Rafale M etc. But then none of them can operate from a LPD like Izumo, Dokdo or Mistral etc , the way F35C can.

Its not a Air superiority fighter anyway and neither it was designed to be one. That’s why most Competent forces like USAF, JASDF,ROKAF, RAF/RN which are inducting F35s , are already operating some air superiority fighters like F22,F15,EFT etc or using F35 for Naval use on small sized carriers.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RISING SUN

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,957
10,948
India
WHOHE may have some serious attitude problems but his posts usually have some substance to back his assertions.
People calling F35 underpowered, should look at other contemporary 4th gen fighters before mocking a fifth gen fighter which is amongst the jets with highest TWR like Su 30, M29, F16, Rafale etc.
And it’s even less significant for survival of a fifth gen multirole fighter like F35 compared to those Fourth gen fighters.
It doesn’t need that high TWR anyway thanks to its large internal weapons bays giving it lower drag coefficient while carrying combat load , unlike those fourth gen ‘aerodynamic designs’ which loose all its aerodynamic advantages as soon as they attach any significant weapon load.
So their superior aerodynamics is only advantageous ( vs F22/F35/J20) to do air shows and not in actual combat.
And to top it all, GE and PW has experience and resources to come up with even higher thrust variants before any of their competitors can complete even preliminary design studies.

The USAF is considering the engine upgrade.



And yes, the current engine is underpowered. Hence why PW has been pushing for a thrust upgrade on it right away.

In 2017, the company said it could offer drop-in thrust or fuel efficiency upgrades for the F135 in concert with the F-35’s Block 4.2 upgrade package. That so-called Growth Option 1.0 idea would improve the F135 engine’s thrust by 6% to 10% depending on the aircraft’s flight condition or reduce fuel consumption by 5%.

Changes as part of the Growth Option 1.0 would be limited to the F135 power module: the compressor, combustor and turbine. P&W claims that the limited nature of the changes would allow the upgrade programme to happen during routine depot maintenance.


Stuff like this is not normal. The LCA Mk1 went through the same issue even though its TWR is way better than the F-35. The IAF decided to call a spade a spade then, hence the modifications on Mk1A. So this is the USAF's way of calling a spade a spade, instead of just saying the F-35 is underpowered, they are saying the F-35 needs a new engine.
 

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,229
796
California
The USAF is considering the engine upgrade.



And yes, the current engine is underpowered. Hence why PW has been pushing for a thrust upgrade on it right away.

In 2017, the company said it could offer drop-in thrust or fuel efficiency upgrades for the F135 in concert with the F-35’s Block 4.2 upgrade package. That so-called Growth Option 1.0 idea would improve the F135 engine’s thrust by 6% to 10% depending on the aircraft’s flight condition or reduce fuel consumption by 5%.

Changes as part of the Growth Option 1.0 would be limited to the F135 power module: the compressor, combustor and turbine. P&W claims that the limited nature of the changes would allow the upgrade programme to happen during routine depot maintenance.


Stuff like this is not normal. The LCA Mk1 went through the same issue even though its TWR is way better than the F-35. The IAF decided to call a spade a spade then, hence the modifications on Mk1A. So this is the USAF's way of calling a spade a spade, instead of just saying the F-35 is underpowered, they are saying the F-35 needs a new engine.
The USAF, DOD, or congress has ever said the f135 is underpowered you know why... because it's not! Your cute article doesn't say the f135 is underpowered unlike Safran CEO who said the french plane has gotten heavier and needs more thrust.

-The F135 provides propulsion to all three variants of the fighter, and is generally recognized as the most powerful, sophisticated military propulsion system currently in service.

The Air Force plans to use a version of the engine on its future B-21 bomber.

The current engine has been encountering readiness issues, which are at least partly traceable to the fact that spare parts and maintenance capacity have been underfunded in the F-35 program compared with past tactical-aircraft efforts

The Armed Services Committee is not happy with the state of fighter sustainment, and thinks a more advanced engine could deliver sizable gains in cost and performance.

The performance expectation is well grounded: incumbent engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney (a contributor to my think tank) has been competing since 2016 with General Electric Aviation to develop a next-generation engine offering 25% greater fuel efficiency and 10% greater thrust in a research effort called the Adaptive Engine Transition Program.

Although not necessarily intended to replace the F135 engine, the program requires the rivals to offer an engine that can fit into the F-35 fuselage and be integrated with other onboard systems.

Both companies say testing of their respective prototypes is “on track,” without volunteering much else.

So at least in principle an alternative to the F135 is in the works.

Whether it will meet Kendall’s criterion for affordability, though, is another matter.

From its inception, the affordability of the overall F-35 fighter effort has been grounded in parts commonality across all three variants.

Using different versions of the same engine is a critical feature of that commonality, because it enables all three receiving services to rely on the same supply chain and maintenance practices to keep their planes flying.

The head of the F-35 Joint Program Office says that would not be feasible if GE’s new engine were used, because it definitely won’t work on the Marine variant of the fighter and might not work on the Navy variant.

It was designed for the Air Force version of the fighter.

So the Armed Services Committee proposal to pursue a replacement engine could force the sea services to use a different support system than the Air Force does.

If the sea services do not use the new engine, then the Air Force would have to pay all the costs of developing the new engine to the point where serial production is feasible.

That in itself probably is not feasible within future Air Force budgets.

But the affordability issue is even more challenging than it sounds, because by the time the new engine—either GE’s or Pratt’s offering—is available, the joint force will have acquired well over a thousand F-35 fighters.

That means half of the Air Force’s fleet might end up with the existing F135 engine, and the other half with its successor.

Thus, no matter what happens with the sea services, the Air Force would have to operate parallel spare parts stores, parallel maintenance processes, and parallel programs for training personnel.

The service might still be a net beneficiary given projected gains in fuel efficiency, but that depends on what it expects fuel to cost in the future.

It could be a net loser on the cost front.

Of course, it would still achieve performance gains with the new engine—assuming it reaches reasonable levels of producibility and reliability—and the Air Force says it needs those gains to keep the fighter’s propulsion in sync with its other upgrade plans.

Needless to say, Pratt & Whitney is less enthused at the prospect of replacing its F135 engine than GE is; GE has been repeatedly rebuffed in efforts to offer an alternate engine for what looks to be the world’s most ubiquitous tactical aircraft through mid-century.

Pratt says it is ready to offer a next-gen propulsion system, but argues that technologies from the Adaptive Engine Transition Program could be incorporated into the existing engine to offer performance gains without a corresponding increase in prices.

The F-35 Joint Program Office will conduct tradeoffs over the next 6-12 months with an eye to defining options for the future.

Once those are in hand, Secretary Kendall and his sea-service counterpart will have to decide what makes sense.

There isn’t much doubt that either company can develop a more advanced engine, but I’m betting that when Kendall sees the price-tag and considers all the uncertainties associated with integrating that engine into the force, he will get cold feet.

Nothing about the f135 being underpowered. This is all about cost, politics and greater thrust to an already powerful engine. If the f135 was underpowered you can bet your a$$ export nations would be making a lot of noise or at least the F-35 opposition but that is not the case.

Keep thinking the f135 is underpowered you'll just keep making an a$$ out of yourself. ;)
 

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,348
1,061
France
F135 engine in the scale of 1 to 10, ten being the best, is a 10 when it comes to fighter engines
The problem is not really the engine. PW and GE are among the best if not the best. The problem is and will remain the frame and the weapon system.
GE and PW has experience and resources to come up with even higher thrust variants before any of their competitors can complete even preliminary design studies.
OK. We are waiting. Hope to see something in the comng months.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,957
10,948
India
The USAF, DOD, or congress has ever said the f135 is underpowered you know why... because it's not! Your cute article doesn't say the f135 is underpowered unlike Safran CEO who said the french plane has gotten heavier and needs more thrust.

-The F135 provides propulsion to all three variants of the fighter, and is generally recognized as the most powerful, sophisticated military propulsion system currently in service.

The Air Force plans to use a version of the engine on its future B-21 bomber.

The current engine has been encountering readiness issues, which are at least partly traceable to the fact that spare parts and maintenance capacity have been underfunded in the F-35 program compared with past tactical-aircraft efforts

The Armed Services Committee is not happy with the state of fighter sustainment, and thinks a more advanced engine could deliver sizable gains in cost and performance.

The performance expectation is well grounded: incumbent engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney (a contributor to my think tank) has been competing since 2016 with General Electric Aviation to develop a next-generation engine offering 25% greater fuel efficiency and 10% greater thrust in a research effort called the Adaptive Engine Transition Program.

Although not necessarily intended to replace the F135 engine, the program requires the rivals to offer an engine that can fit into the F-35 fuselage and be integrated with other onboard systems.

Both companies say testing of their respective prototypes is “on track,” without volunteering much else.

So at least in principle an alternative to the F135 is in the works.

Whether it will meet Kendall’s criterion for affordability, though, is another matter.

From its inception, the affordability of the overall F-35 fighter effort has been grounded in parts commonality across all three variants.

Using different versions of the same engine is a critical feature of that commonality, because it enables all three receiving services to rely on the same supply chain and maintenance practices to keep their planes flying.

The head of the F-35 Joint Program Office says that would not be feasible if GE’s new engine were used, because it definitely won’t work on the Marine variant of the fighter and might not work on the Navy variant.

It was designed for the Air Force version of the fighter.

So the Armed Services Committee proposal to pursue a replacement engine could force the sea services to use a different support system than the Air Force does.

If the sea services do not use the new engine, then the Air Force would have to pay all the costs of developing the new engine to the point where serial production is feasible.

That in itself probably is not feasible within future Air Force budgets.

But the affordability issue is even more challenging than it sounds, because by the time the new engine—either GE’s or Pratt’s offering—is available, the joint force will have acquired well over a thousand F-35 fighters.

That means half of the Air Force’s fleet might end up with the existing F135 engine, and the other half with its successor.

Thus, no matter what happens with the sea services, the Air Force would have to operate parallel spare parts stores, parallel maintenance processes, and parallel programs for training personnel.

The service might still be a net beneficiary given projected gains in fuel efficiency, but that depends on what it expects fuel to cost in the future.

It could be a net loser on the cost front.

Of course, it would still achieve performance gains with the new engine—assuming it reaches reasonable levels of producibility and reliability—and the Air Force says it needs those gains to keep the fighter’s propulsion in sync with its other upgrade plans.

Needless to say, Pratt & Whitney is less enthused at the prospect of replacing its F135 engine than GE is; GE has been repeatedly rebuffed in efforts to offer an alternate engine for what looks to be the world’s most ubiquitous tactical aircraft through mid-century.

Pratt says it is ready to offer a next-gen propulsion system, but argues that technologies from the Adaptive Engine Transition Program could be incorporated into the existing engine to offer performance gains without a corresponding increase in prices.

The F-35 Joint Program Office will conduct tradeoffs over the next 6-12 months with an eye to defining options for the future.

Once those are in hand, Secretary Kendall and his sea-service counterpart will have to decide what makes sense.

There isn’t much doubt that either company can develop a more advanced engine, but I’m betting that when Kendall sees the price-tag and considers all the uncertainties associated with integrating that engine into the force, he will get cold feet.

Nothing about the f135 being underpowered. This is all about cost, politics and greater thrust to an already powerful engine. If the f135 was underpowered you can bet your a$$ export nations would be making a lot of noise or at least the F-35 opposition but that is not the case.

Keep thinking the f135 is underpowered you'll just keep making an a$$ out of yourself. ;)

*yawn*

The F-35's engine is fine for low and medium altitudes, it's not suitable for high altitude, hence the need to upgrade. Everybody always miss out on the details, the fine print, "conditions apply".

You may not know this, for obvious reasons, but as you climb higher in altitude, there is a drop in thrust due to the lower air density. So what's fine at sea level is not fine at higher altitudes.

Pilot citations are useless since they are not talking about beyond medium altitude.

Since the USAF at the moment has no choice but to operate the F-35A as an air superiority fighter, it needs an engine upgrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bon Plan

AbRaj

Senior member
Dec 6, 2017
2,490
1,827
Republic of Wadiya
The USAF is considering the engine upgrade.



And yes, the current engine is underpowered. Hence why PW has been pushing for a thrust upgrade on it right away.

In 2017, the company said it could offer drop-in thrust or fuel efficiency upgrades for the F135 in concert with the F-35’s Block 4.2 upgrade package. That so-called Growth Option 1.0 idea would improve the F135 engine’s thrust by 6% to 10% depending on the aircraft’s flight condition or reduce fuel consumption by 5%.

Changes as part of the Growth Option 1.0 would be limited to the F135 power module: the compressor, combustor and turbine. P&W claims that the limited nature of the changes would allow the upgrade programme to happen during routine depot maintenance.


Stuff like this is not normal. The LCA Mk1 went through the same issue even though its TWR is way better than the F-35. The IAF decided to call a spade a spade then, hence the modifications on Mk1A. So this is the USAF's way of calling a spade a spade, instead of just saying the F-35 is underpowered, they are saying the F-35 needs a new engine.

LCA is a poorly designed Draggy Delta wing design with lots of energy bleeding in rate fights. It’s a bare bone 4th gen fighter with paltry fuel capacity which is why it’s a point defence fighter unlike F35. If you take dry weights and not include 50% fuel, you will get completely different picture. Even putting two GE 404 won’t make it any better rate fighter. And that’s why IAF and HAL is going for limited production and early design change in form of LCA mk2/MWF and even hoping to ditch it altogether by AMCA and MRFA.
It’s pure naivety to compare the two. LCA will not even know who shot them if it’s get caught in a fight with something like F35.
 
Last edited:

Hydra

Senior member
May 19, 2020
2,894
1,378
Mumbai
LCA is a poorly designed Draggy Delta wing design with lots of energy bleeding in rate fights. It’s a bare bone 4th gen fighter with paltry fuel capacity which is why it’s a point defence fighter unlike F35. If you take dry weights and not include 50% fuel, you will get completely different picture. Even putting two GE 404 won’t make it any better rate fighter. And that’s why IAF and HAL is going for limited production and early design change in form of LCA mk2/MWF and even hoping to ditch it altogether by AMCA and MRFA.
It’s pure naivety to compare the two. LCA will not even know who shot them if it’s get caught in a fight with something like F35.
New iaf chief is not intrested LCA mk2 i beleive. He did not mention any thing about mk2 purchase since he took charge.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,957
10,948
India
LCA is a poorly designed Draggy Delta wing design with lots of energy bleeding in rate fights. It’s a bare bone 4th gen fighter with paltry fuel capacity which is why it’s a point defence fighter unlike F35. If you take dry weights and not include 50% fuel, you will get completely different picture. Even putting two GE 404 won’t make it any better rate fighter. And that’s why IAF and HAL is going for limited production and early design change in form of LCA mk2/MWF and even hoping to ditch it altogether by AMCA and MRFA.

Not true. The LCA is a very, very well designed jet. It suffers from increased weight, which is being corrected on the Mk1A.

Anyway the design itself doesn't matter, underpowered is underpowered.

It’s pure naivety to compare the two. LCA will not even know who shot them if it’s get caught in a fight with something like F35.

This ha snothing to do with why the engine needs an uprate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya b7777

AbRaj

Senior member
Dec 6, 2017
2,490
1,827
Republic of Wadiya
Not true. The LCA is a very, very well designed jet. It suffers from increased weight, which is being corrected on the Mk1A.
It has poor STR, low fuel capacity, MTOW compared to even F16 C/D, the US equivalent of LCA/MWF. It’s essentially a one turn fighter similar to M2000. A wrong 1st turn and you are screwed.
Anyway the design itself doesn't matter, underpowered is underpowered.
How it’s underpowered when it’s Thrust to Empty weight is comparable to any modern fourth gen fighter. You can’t blame designers for going for higher internal fuel capacity. It’s a VLO/Stealth design first and foremost. That’s why it doesn’t have to carry those Rafale and F16 like huge external fuel tanks for doing routine CAP duty. Rafale and F16 with those two/three fuel tanks behave essentially like a air lorry instead of a a mean and lean fighter.
This ha snothing to do with why the engine needs an uprate.
Those huge AN/APG 81 AESAs, EOTS, SPJs, DAS and dozens of other electronic suits that F35 have, do consume a lot of power. LCA has none except a small and quite frankly Outdated Pulse Doppler radar with limited range and processing power.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RISING SUN

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,957
10,948
India
It has poor STR, low fuel capacity, MTOW compared to even F16 C/D, the US equivalent of LCA/MWF. It’s essentially a one turn fighter similar to M2000. A wrong 1st turn and you are screwed.

How it’s underpowered when it’s Thrust to Empty weight is comparable to any modern fourth gen fighter. You can’t blame designers for going for higher internal fuel capacity. It’s a VLO/Stealth design first and foremost. That’s why it doesn’t have to carry those Rafale and F16 like huge external fuel tanks for doing routine CAP duty. Rafale and F16 with those two/three fuel tanks behave essentially like a air lorry instead of a a mean and lean fighter.

Aircraft need to be compared to the threats they face. STR, low fuel capacity, MTOW etc, against which opponent? The LCA Mk1 has to beat JF-17 and F-16 in air to air combat. Whereas the F-35 has to beat Su-57 and J-20 in air to air combat. So which aircraft is gonna fare better against their respective opponents?

Nothing you have pointed out here has anything to do with the topic of an underpowered engine. When an aircraft has an underpowered engine, then it has an underpowered engine, there's no point comparing it on a different metric. This is not an LCA vs F-35 discussion.

If I point out there are two people here who can't enter a running race because both are crippled, you are talking about how good of a singer one guy is comapred to the other. Nothing you say here about either of them can change the fact that they can't run in a race.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya b7777

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,229
796
California
*yawn*

The F-35's engine is fine for low and medium altitudes, it's not suitable for high altitude, hence the need to upgrade. Everybody always miss out on the details, the fine print, "conditions apply".

You may not know this, for obvious reasons, but as you climb higher in altitude, there is a drop in thrust due to the lower air density. So what's fine at sea level is not fine at higher altitudes.

You idiot it was at 50k that the F-35C/B going mach 1.4 in testing discovered that paint peeled off. They tried many times again and could not replicate it. F-35 has a combat ceiling of 50k and has no problems operating at those altitudes.

And good for you avoiding how F-35 with a full internal load and fully fuel doesn't need afterburners to take off unlike the french plane.
Pilot citations are useless since they are not talking about beyond medium altitude.

Got any proof or are you pulling claims out of your butt again?
Since the USAF at the moment has no choice but to operate the F-35A as an air superiority fighter, it needs an engine upgrade.

-The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.

The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to "throw" such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.

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."

In combat configuration, the F-35’s range exceeds that of fourth generation fighters by 25 percent. These are Air Force figures, O’Bryan noted. "We’re comparing [the F-35] to [the] ‘best of’ fourth gen" fighters. The F-35 "compares favorably in any area of the envelope," he asserted.

Lets see the french plane do those speeds without afterburners with at least 18,000lb of fuel, two 2,000lb bombs and two BVR missiles.

main-qimg-904eac17813566c5f21a56ee1943dc65.png


Lol. Yeah underpowered. :rolleyes:
 

Attachments

  • 5319624fe1c932ed9e85e1855ae202f9.jpg
    5319624fe1c932ed9e85e1855ae202f9.jpg
    117.1 KB · Views: 20
  • Like
Reactions: RISING SUN

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,957
10,948
India
You idiot it was at 50k that the F-35C/B going mach 1.4 in testing discovered that paint peeled off. They tried many times again and could not replicate it. F-35 has a combat ceiling of 50k and has no problems operating at those altitudes.

And good for you avoiding how F-35 with a full internal load and fully fuel doesn't need afterburners to take off unlike the french plane.


Got any proof or are you pulling claims out of your butt again?


-The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.

The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to "throw" such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.

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."

In combat configuration, the F-35’s range exceeds that of fourth generation fighters by 25 percent. These are Air Force figures, O’Bryan noted. "We’re comparing [the F-35] to [the] ‘best of’ fourth gen" fighters. The F-35 "compares favorably in any area of the envelope," he asserted.

Lets see the french plane do those speeds without afterburners with at least 18,000lb of fuel, two 2,000lb bombs and two BVR missiles.

View attachment 21800

Lol. Yeah underpowered. :rolleyes:

Dude, you know nothing about this.

Just 'cause I can run doesn't mean I can beat Usain Bolt at running. Just because the F-35 has demonstrated something doesn't mean it can do that all the time every time against any adversary aircraft in any situation to the same level. You are bragging about things that don't even matter.

You should go convince the USAF not to change the engine even before the jet becomes operational. Send an email to them with all your links, maybe that will convince them.