thanks smin
In-game it goes 1.3 mach clean, the public data suggests 1.4 on hot day conditions and with ordnance mounted. Is that disparity not sufficient to warrant a subsequent report?
cruising is no more than staying at a consistent speed, how much throttle doesn’t really come into it. you are just bending definitions just as you are with sensor fusion because you cant stand the idea of typhoon being a good aircraft.
1 Like
Lightning was mentioned, LIGHTNING MY BELOVED. Who i wish we had the f.2 in game.
2 Likes
Well in a discussion about supercruise you cant not mention the aircraft which created the phrase and definition
Are you aware of the jet that introduced the term “supercruise”? The definition may be being used differently but that doesn’t change the old requirements because some company used it in their marketing (aka, lockhead martin using supercrusie differently to everyone else perhaps?).
Supercruise is being able to go mach on dry thrust, fact. The definition has been in use since the 1950’s and i highly doubt many jets could even manage that back then, so this “new” definition is probably lockhead trying to get some key words in their marketing.
Best example for this would be “modularity”, if you want a contract from the us army your gonna need modularity in their somewhere or the politicians (high up brass) wont even look in your direction even if they have no clue what they are on about.
1 Like
Look - watch what you are saying. If Mr Floggy submits a report and gets the Lightning nerfed to subsonic Meteor speeds - I’ll hold you responsible.
It is a reduced throttle setting intended to allow efficient operation, improved SFC at a given airspeed. The F-22 is optimized to be able to cruise at 1.5 mach and fly in dry thrust up to 1.82 - this matches the term wholly.
The F-106 exceeded the sound barrier on dry thrust in service as early as 1956. I am not sure if the EEL demonstrated it prior but it was limited to 1.1 - 1.3 mach and only in near arctic weather conditions whereas the F-106 can comfortably fly up to 1.5 mach on full dry thrust.
Delta Dart? :)
The definition of stealth has shifted over time too.
I mean we arent allowed to have red tops with their accurate all aspect ability so I wouldn’t be surprised if it got gimped more
That is a problem with all infrared missiles lacking all-aspect capability against afterburning targets and in other conditions. Gaijin’s modeling of IR seekers and IRST is poor.
1 Like
I’m curious why you trust the USAF more than multiple independent nations that operate the Typhoon?
Do they get a pass because the F-22 is cool?
where does efficiency come into “can fly faster than sound with only dry thrust”
Lightning p1a did in 1954
once again a later plane to lightning.
the principles of physics have never changed
1 Like
no falcons for US and other falcon operators either, its quite sad along with the lack of both British and US cold war aircraft.
1 Like
well the threshold for what is considered stealth probably has
Id consider anything which has a smaller RCS as being somewhat stealth. just because its not a B2 doesn’t mean it isn’t stealthy in nature
1 Like
exactly, the US would consider it below idk, like 0.001m^2 i guess, what is stealth varies depending on who you ask.
‘Stealth’ is a relative term.
A Rafale or Typhoon are ‘stealthy’ compared to an F-4 for example. Most modern ships have ‘stealth’ features but are still massive lumps of metal in the water.
One popular term was ‘low-observables’ as applied to the F-117 and B-2. Probably where the entire premise of the aircraft design is driven by stealth, for stealth, etc. almost to the exclusion of all other considerations.
Edit to add - however we are kind of dancing on the head of a pin. Abilities such as supersonic, supercruise, look-down radar are very much binary/clear-cut - YES or NO qualities with no such fuzziness in the definition.
3 Likes
this ^
the concept has stayed the same.