Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

By demonizing the F-35 and putting all it's hopes on the F-22, it no longer has any plane to pin it's hopes on for an effective AU fighter.

APA are all for the F-15SE now, well Peter Goon is at least. Don't think Kopp wants to humiliate himself further by trying to sell that SE as a lower RCS aircraft than the F-35 like he's trying to do with the PAK FA, despite his own evidence.

Goon has gone batshit crazy on Australian aviation forums lately though, so who knows if he's serious/lucid.

Got any links? I do enjoy a good trainwreck from time to time.

By demonizing the F-35 and putting all it's hopes on the F-22, it no longer has any plane to pin it's hopes on for an effective AU fighter.

APA are all for the F-15SE now, well Peter Goon is at least. Don't think Kopp wants to humiliate himself further by trying to sell that SE as a lower RCS aircraft than the F-35 like he's trying to do with the PAK FA, despite his own evidence.

Goon has gone batshit crazy on Australian aviation forums lately though, so who knows if he's serious/lucid.

I would be surprised if the PAK FA had a lower RCS than the F-15SE or F-35. All reports so far indicate the F-15SE has RCS higher than the F-35 as well.

F-119's in a flanker... Will a f414 fit in an mig-29?

Sorry...

APA has already claimed that the Flankers are running an F119 equivalent.
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html (you'll have to scroll down)

Yeah, I remember the Flanker surviving a bird strike and keep running with its KD-36DM engine management system

91-4008 Took-off from Dobbins AFB, Georgia on a planned cross country ferry flight to Edwards AFB, California. Shortly after take-off and during rendezvous with two chase F-15s at 1335 hours the F-22 ingested a 8.5 pound Loon in its right engine. Surprisingly even though a lot of damage to the engine, the engine continued to operate normally.

Damage to the aircraft was to the intake and the engine itself. The engine could not be repaired.

Note: For those who don't get the joke. The KD-36DM is the ejection seat. The engines are AL-31s which seem to have a service life of ~600 Hours.

Why post stuff that "seems"..
When you can post stuff that "IS".

AL-31FM1 has service life of 2000 hour.
AL-31FM2 has service life of 3000 hour.

http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=1615

And the Flanker does not have F119 engines equivelent.
Its two totaly different engines.
It has this instead:

117S has service life of 4000 hour.

http://npo-saturn.ru/?sat=64

So 600 hours was a little low for total service life.. my bad..I still would be surprised if an AL-31 or AL-41(117S) can go more than 600 hours without an overhaul. Perhaps That_Engine_Guy will make an appearance, and confirm. I personally doubt the engine could get to 4000 hours without MAJOR rebuild during overhaul. Maybe they and make a Blisk fan/compressor stage like the F119, but until that is in FULL production and in service powering a jet fighter, its speculation as to reliability. Pratt & Whitney F119 engines have been in service for over 10 years. GE F414 engines, have been in service over 10 years as well.

The F119 is probably the most reliable engine ever flown in a jet fighter, and the F135 would be close, but hasn't really passed "oh s**t" test of a real in-flight emergency after a FOD incident.

How many Sukhoi pilots have ejected/crashed from a FOD/Bird Strike incident? More than the zero F-22 pilots?

Edit: Wikipedia page states a Saturn 117S engine has a TBO of 1000 hours. We shall see.

All good.
As long as the engine operate in all parameters between each TBO.
All jet engines has a given TBO, so its a moot point.
I'll post this vid for info about how far NPO Saturn whom developed the 117S jet engine. Russia has an exellent take on special alloys that require heat resistance requirement. Like these fan blade shown in this vid.
They are made of ceramic matrices alloy. Briliant stuff, makes it withstand very high temp.
It possess the injection RTM composite fabrication technology used in Snecma's Leap 1B composite fan.
Whatch from 05:00 min
http://www.vesti.ru/only_video.html?vid=370942

Anyway, my point is, Russian jet engine are designed in a different mindset from western jet Engines.
Russian Engines are more T/W focused. Due to their light weight, and high Thrust output(high temp), it quite logical that they have shorter life service.
In short, Russian Engines are more maxed out.

There is no equall to the 117 engines that are used on Pak-Fa when it come the T/W ratio.
The 117 engine has 15.000kgf of thrust, and is 150 kilo lighter if we compair it with the AL-31FM1 engines, which dry weight is 1,570 kilograms.
A T/W ratio at 10,56:1 Not bad at all.

Gibberish.

By demonizing the F-35 and putting all it's hopes on the F-22, it no longer has any plane to pin it's hopes on for an effective AU fighter.

APA are all for the F-15SE now, well Peter Goon is at least. Don't think Kopp wants to humiliate himself further by trying to sell that SE as a lower RCS aircraft than the F-35 like he's trying to do with the PAK FA, despite his own evidence.

Goon has gone batshit crazy on Australian aviation forums lately though, so who knows if he's serious/lucid.

I would be surprised if the PAK FA had a lower RCS than the F-15SE or F-35. All reports so far indicate the F-15SE has RCS higher than the F-35 as well.

I find it hard to believe that the Silent Eagle has anywhere near as low a RCS as the F-35.

I would be surprised if the PAK FA had a lower RCS than the F-15SE or F-35. All reports so far indicate the F-15SE has RCS higher than the F-35 as well.

I find it hard to believe that the Silent Eagle has anywhere near as low a RCS as the F-35.

The F-15SE is too expensive and a decade too late. Sorry Boeing. The F-15E airframe (servicing/maintenance wise) didn't change that much, from the 70s designed F-15B. The F/A-18E/F is significant improvement over the F/A-18C/D when it comes to maintenance requirements, panel access etc.

On a related topic, the F-117 used a surprising amount of "available" components from other jets like the F/A-18 and F-16 (F-5 for HAVE BLUE). If the DoD really wanted a stealth F-15, they could take the engines (F110 or F100), take the mission systems off a F/A-18E/F or F-15E/K/SG, but keep the "outline" of a smaller F-22. Estimated put the program cost (prototype + EMD) in the $10-$20bn range, but it would be a real 5th gen fighter.

The SE is only stealthy form head on. It's not all aspect stealth. Yes weapons pods do help some. Ground based radars will still see you way out. On a bombing mission when you get over enemy held ground radars can see you. In an all aspect stealth they will have a much harder time. Now on an interception mission the lower RCS head on will make it harder for the attacking aircraft to see your intercepter. This is the problem with the eurofighters "lower" RCS.

What about the intakes? The leading edges still appear to be perpendicular to the axis -- not good for forward RCS.

Your very right. I don't think the SE's rcs is as good as the f-35. But in theory is much better the a standard eagles.[/img]

In a word, there's-no-f*%@#g-way the Silent eagle has a better RCS from ANY aspect, especially from the side. One of the things I can comment on with reasonable confidence is the comparison of aircraft specular RCS based on shaping features.

Kopp botched the following article in relation to F-35 RCS in comparison to the PAK FA.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html

He refuses to mention at what angle the side of an F-35 becomes a bright target. He knows its around 22-25 degrees below horizontal, but still persists in saying the PAK FA has a better RCS profile even though his own simulation proves otherwise. He's simulated the F-35's side before, made a vague, false comment of the result and did not post a polar diagram to back himself up.

I doubt he would ever dare to say the SE is a stealth fighter. That aircraft is merely Goon's latest man-crash due to its speed I'd say.

To witness Goon's fall into bubbling at the mouth insanity, just copy and paste the following line into google and read some of his attacks on Andrew McLaughlin. He REALLY has it in for this guy and is stalking him in the comments section of that site like a certified fruitloop:

australianaviation.com.au "Peter."

In a word, there's-no-f*%@#g-way the Silent eagle has a better RCS from ANY aspect, especially from the side. One of the things I can comment on with reasonable confidence is the comparison of aircraft specular RCS based on shaping features.

Kopp botched the following article in relation to F-35 RCS in comparison to the PAK FA.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html

He refuses to mention at what angle the side of an F-35 becomes a bright target. He knows its around 22-25 degrees below horizontal, but still persists in saying the PAK FA has a better RCS profile even though his own simulation proves otherwise. He's simulated the F-35's side before, made a vague, false comment of the result and did not post a polar diagram to back himself up.

I doubt he would ever dare to say the SE is a stealth fighter. That aircraft is merely Goon's latest man-crash due to its speed I'd say.

To witness Goon's fall into bubbling at the mouth insanity, just copy and paste the following line into google and read some of his attacks on Andrew McLaughlin. He REALLY has it in for this guy and is stalking him in the comments section of that site like a certified fruitloop:

australianaviation.com.au "Peter."

Whilst Peter Goon certainly has his issues, that poster is not him. I strongly suspect it's one of the lunatic types who follow him around the web, the type who infest ELP's blog and continually re-assure him that whatever garbage he is sprouting today is "right"...

it quite hard to understand , i dont get it , if the pilot pull the power back then the force will be decrease how could the f-35 still able to remain it's speed ???
( i mean it physics )

In trans-sonic flight, a shock wave will build at the leading edge of the aircraft. The additional thrust of MAX power will punch the aircraft through the sound-barrier (and offending drag) then the throttle can be reduced to MIL power. The drag above MACH 1 is lower than the drag at MACH 0.95 and requires less thrust to maintain speed.

can you explain why it still consume more gas if it is supercruise
btw how much gas the afterburner mode consume compared to normal dry thrust

In 'supercruise' the pilot would have the throttle at or very near MIL (100% power of the engine without the augmentor).

So follow me here, I'll use be using basic numbers as a relative thing to compare...

MIL power consumes 1
MAX power consumes 4

Now if you're flying at supercruise, your engine is buring '1' fuel to do MACH 1.2
If you're doing MACH .9 your throttle can be set much lower, say '0.7' and your saving fuel
Try MACH 1.5 and your throttle is set to 4

Now if you were to plug fuel flows in, and multiply by the 'representative figures' given, you can see where speed costs fuel.

This is much the same as people driving 70MPH using more fuel than people driving at 55MPH. Same car, same motor, same load, same distance. But to make the trip faster you WILL use more fuel.

Keep 'em flyin'
TEG