M1.2 supercruise + DAS = invincible against Su-35

[vanshilar]

Additionally, that 150nm range is in context of a combat radius, rather than a hard limit. A pilot could likely maintain M1.2 for more than 150nm, if they were willing to trade off some range.

There are potentially other issues. One that I can think of is thermal limits, say some temperature in the engine or in the plane itself (such as the radome) getting too high if it stays at supersonic speeds for too long. It may be that the 150 mile limit is due to some other issue and not the airplane's kinetic performance.

[wrightwing]

Additionally, that 150nm range is in context of a combat radius, rather than a hard limit. A pilot could likely maintain M1.2 for more than 150nm, if they were willing to trade off some range.

There are potentially other issues. One that I can think of is thermal limits, say some temperature in the engine or in the plane itself (such as the radome) getting too high if it stays at supersonic speeds for too long. It may be that the 150 mile limit is due to some other issue and not the airplane's kinetic performance.

This is true, however there was no mention that the 150nm number, was due to airframe constraints.

[wrightwing]

* I asked about the Mach 1.2 supercruise stat, which I've been reluctant to use in my arguments, given only one source had been found for it. He said the F-35 can't supercruise. He said It can hold .98 or .99 Mach flying level, without burners, but to hold supersonic, it would need to be in a slight dive (1-2 degrees) or use very light burner. He said that could probably change, if they tweaked the software for the engine, giving more thrust, but reducing engine life.

There's two problems with that though.

1. It depends on your starting condition assumptions. If you start at subsonic and stay at mil power, you might hold at a certain Mach that's subsonic. But if you start supersonic, say start at Mach 1.5, then go to mil power, and see what speed it eventually settles down to (assuming not F-22), you may hold at a supersonic speed. So it depends on if the context was settling down from supersonic or starting at subsonic.

2. A plane that's at Mach 0.98 or 0.99 should already be experiencing a lot of drag since it's in the transonic regime. I would think (but obviously may be wrong) that at a higher Mach number the drag would be less. So I don't really see why a plane could hold Mach 0.98 or 0.99 but not a Mach in the low supersonics.

The biggest assumption, is that LM uses M1.5 as the definition of supercruising, not M1.

[quicksilver]

"Given the most updated military speed of the F-35 is Mach 1.2..."

Really? Says who? When?

[ricnunes]

The biggest assumption, is that LM uses M1.5 as the definition of supercruising, not M1.

Yeap, that one crossed my mind as well.
I also remember to have read somewhere that LM's definition of supercruising is Mach 1.5 or above hence why they (LM) says that the F-22 is the "only" supercruising capable fighter aircraft in the world.
Perhaps this "supercruise definition" is also used by the USAF as well?

[basher54321]

He didn't give any such indication. He appears to definitely contradict the magazine's claim. Unless the magazine was using a weird definition of "supercruise" anyway.

Actually not the first - Lock Mart test pilot Chris Clemence also said pretty much the same thing over the last year.

To overcome the drag if clean you need more thrust - whether enough extra can be gained on a cold day to sustain the M1.2 or not who knows.

[quicksilver]

So...somebody at the front of the thread makes a statement about F-35, 1.2M mil etc... that someone else supposes is from a 4.5 yr old article (2012)...which others assume is accurately reported (in both fact and context)...and which others then fill in the blanks on with supposition and speculation.

PIL's conversation at Nellis (entirely consistent with conversations previously discussed here ad nauseum) should all but close the door on speculation about 'supercruising F-35s.' As we've said here over and over and over, the jet will not achieve supersonic speeds in level flight at any altitude in any configuration -- in mil power. It does however, go super' fairly easily at altitude with a little burner and -- because it carries lotsa JP (not because ab saves fuel...omg) -- will sustain super' speeds for significant periods of time/distance -- as long as the ab remains engaged (however slightly), or one unloads the jet (thereby giving up ones altitude). PIL's conversation, and Hemo Clemence, and Beesley and the Norwegian dude -- all say it. So, stop already with the supercruise nonsense.

[sferrin]

One that I can think of is thermal limits, say some temperature in the engine or in the plane itself (such as the radome) getting too high if it stays at supersonic speeds for too long. It may be that the 150 mile limit is due to some other issue and not the airplane's kinetic performance.

I seriously doubt that. The materials are going to be similar to an F-22 and heatwise Mach 1.2 isn't going to generate all that much.

[smsgtmac]

This whole conversation seems very familiar.
Minor point, "unloading" may or may not involve a 'dive' per se. An unload in level flight could result in a short sinking, but as the plane accellerates from the unload, more lift is generated and eventually the increased lift at lower AoA/higher speed equals or exceeds the lift generated before the unload. If this is done expertly, the unload is timed to get the jet through its highest drag region and on the other side of "transonic", if there is a point where total drag is equal to or less than the drag at the fastest subsonic dry thrust airspeed, and there is still sufficient dry engine thrust avaiable to the jet in question, there is no reason why the jet can't hold that higher speed wherever the thrust/drag ratio without AB occurs (if it does occur) in the supersonic region.
If prior allusions to keeping above Mach 1 without reheat are more along the lines of blasting through mach to a higher speed, say M1.3 and backing out of AB to a 150nm 'supercruise' before the speed bleeds below M1, I really don't see any operational difference from a steady state supercruise at a speed thats an 'average' of the 'slow bleed' method. Seems like the whole issue about supercruise criteria is more academic than relevant.
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... c.html?m=0

[gta4]

OK let's put aside the "supercuise" claim and assume F-35 could sustain M0.99 in mil, what about the rest of the analysis? Such as the "aim9x range vs R77 range" and the discussions about the DAS.

[quicksilver]

This whole conversation seems very familiar.
Minor point, "unloading" may or may not involve a 'dive' per se. An unload in level flight could result in a short sinking, but as the plane accellerates from the unload, more lift is generated and eventually the increased lift at lower AoA/higher speed equals or exceeds the lift generated before the unload. If this is done expertly, the unload is timed to get the jet through its highest drag region and on the other side of "transonic", if there is a point where total drag is equal to or less than the drag at the fastest subsonic dry thrust airspeed, and there is still sufficient dry engine thrust avaiable to the jet in question, there is no reason why the jet can't hold that higher speed wherever the thrust/drag ratio without AB occurs (if it does occur) in the supersonic region.
If prior allusions to keeping above Mach 1 without reheat are more along the lines of blasting through mach to a higher speed, say M1.3 and backing out of AB to a 150nm 'supercruise' before the speed bleeds below M1, I really don't see any operational difference from a steady state supercruise at a speed thats an 'average' of the 'slow bleed' method. Seems like the whole issue about supercruise criteria is more academic than relevant.
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... c.html?m=0

No sh*t sherlock. But this isn't academic; the jet will not sustain supersonic flight in mil unless you keep it unloaded.

[hornetfinn]

IMO, the whole scenario by OP is very unrealistic. There are many things that make F-35 nearly invicible against Su-35 and I'd say supercruise is not one of them. It seems that F-35 doesn't supercruise by any definition of the word, but has tons of highly important features that Su-35 and other 4th gen fighters lack.

First, Su-35 would not be chasing F-35s because they would likely not see them with radar due to miniscule RCS of F-35. Barracuda could also tell F-35 pilots if Su-35 has any chance of seeing them in their radars and could act accordingly. Su-35 IRST is also pretty useless as it will have serious trouble finding F-35 at any reasonable range without outside help to narrow down the search area and use smallest FoV of the system to maximize range. Even F-15E and F-16s have had huge amounts of trouble finding and fighting IOC F-35s even when given every possible training advantage imaginable and having generally superior equipment to Su-35s like AESA, high definition targeting pods and AIM-9X.

Another thing is that F-35s can fight using very wide separation and still have common and highly accurate situational awareness of the surroundings while being almost undetectable by the enemy. That means chasing one F-35 would likely lead to Su-35s being engaged by other F-35s from multiple directions or by other platforms. I think that those Su-35s would try chasing F-35s just once...

[mikemag]

I find this topic/discussion fascinating. Good points by all. As far as the debate being relevant in the real world versus purely academic, the ability to supercruise is valuable. It just is. The farther you can sling an AMRAAM, the more control you have over the battle space. If the F-35 can't supercruise, it is still immensely more lethal than the Su-35 IMO, for all the reasons listed in various posts above. AND if we really want it to supercruise, the proposed block 2 engine upgrades should do nicely I think.

[smsgtmac]

No sh*t sherlock. But this isn't academic; the jet will not sustain supersonic flight in mil unless you keep it unloaded.

Well Watson, my point about unloading and getting to the high side of trans-sonic wasn't directed at those who already understood. There seemed to be some in the thread who weren't really yet grasping the concept (re: unload vs. 'dive') but had the Holmseian perspicacity to do so with just a little more data.

And while I would and have opined (since the 'news' came out: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... -f-35.html) the F-35's claimed ability to fly 150 miles above Mach 1 when starting at Mach 1.2 and slowly bleeding off speed is NOT a real "supercruise" capability, what is NOT academic and is most relevant-- to my thinking anyway-- is the unanswerable question of the moment: Is there any real difference in military utility that arises from the difference between what the F-35 does "do" and a 'real supercruise' (whatever that means)?

[hornetfinn]

I find this topic/discussion fascinating. Good points by all. As far as the debate being relevant in the real world versus purely academic, the ability to supercruise is valuable. It just is. The farther you can sling an AMRAAM, the more control you have over the battle space. If the F-35 can't supercruise, it is still immensely more lethal than the Su-35 IMO, for all the reasons listed in various posts above. AND if we really want it to supercruise, the proposed block 2 engine upgrades should do nicely I think.

Why would slinging AMRAAMs require or even benefit much from supercruise? The speed can most efficiently and effectively increased by using AB and AFAIK, even F-22s use AB to accelerate from normal subsonic cruise speeds. Of course they can use supercruise to go quicker from point A to point B or to minimize exposure time to enemy defences. I see they would not need to accelerate to sling missiles further if they already supercruised but F-35 can definitely sling missiles quite far by accelerating with AB. With F-35 stealth and SA advantage, I think the supercruise benefits are less than for even F-22. I think Eurofighter Typhoon is the aircraft that benefits most from supercruise as it increases survivability for non-VLO aircraft the most.