Atleast the HUD countdown is working for the Bomb drop :)))))
Typhoon currently has supercruse. No staff have said that Typhoon cannot supercruse or it’s somehow fake.
6 Likes
By this article F-22 demonstrates 'supercruise' for first time
Supercruise defined as 1.5+ with full combat load for sustained periods, so EFT doesn’t supercruise
1 Like
The article very much reads like a Lockheed Marketing spiel to be honest. I would be wary of taking a single quote from 1999 (amidst a massive PR campaign to keep the program going when many big ticket items were being cut) and treating it as gospel. Especially when every other quote on the subject would disagree.
Supercruise as defined by pretty much every aircraft manufacturer is the ability to sustain flight at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburner. The threshold is clear-cut and Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen Lightning, Concorde all meet that threshold.
I’ll edit to add some sourcing. From the Bundeswehr.
Supersonic speed – without afterburner
The multipurpose combat aircraft is powered by two EJ200 engines produced by the Eurojet consortium. Each engine generates a thrust of about 60,000 N without afterburner. When the afterburner is used in addition, a maximum thrust of more than 90,000 N is generated. Unlike the Tornado, the Eurofighter takes off without afterburner during normal flight operations. This reduces noise pollution at the airfields of the German Air Force. The Eurofighter can accelerate into the supersonic range even without using the afterburner and fly at supersonic speed for an extended period of time. This capability, known as “supercruise,” is currently available to only a few combat aircraft worldwide.
From RUSI.
The distinguishing capabilities of so called ‘4.5 Generation’ fighters such as the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen include low-observability to radar; the ability to supercruise (fly at supersonic speed without using afterburners); and extreme manoeuvrability at all speeds. The excellent beyond-visual-range (BVR) and within-visual-range air combat capabilities of all three European fighters revolve around supercruising at very high altitude using powerful sensors and long range missiles, as well as being able to sustain high energy levels during extreme manoeuvres in a dogfight.
To argue otherwise is basically trying to move the goalposts ‘after the fact’.
1 Like
Sadly that article doesn’t get to be the sole source on defining the definition of supercruse.
5 Likes
reminds me of yesterdays sad attempt of one guy claiming his definition of sensor fusion is the only one
2 Likes
Don’t start THAT again, the thread was almost returning to a semblance of sanity without summoning ‘he who shall not named’/
2 Likes
I don’t see how being held to a higher standard makes it a marketing spiel.
Yes, by the definition of the company that makes the plane, and the people that use it, every plane you listed supercruises, but none except the Concorde (which isn’t even a combat aircraft) can supercruise by USAF standards
Don’t see how it’s moving goalposts after the fact if the article I posted is older than both the ones you did
i have already reported this up here
You kind of answer your own question. A single quote says that supercruise must be 1.5+.
Let’s say I find another internet quote that says supercruise must now be Mach 2.0+. Would we then now class the F-22 as no longer being supercruise capable? Or just moving definitions around?
Not having a dig at you personally - but the logic seems a bit off. After all, you either take the definition that is used by the majority - or you opt for the arbitrary one-off definition quoted in an article a quarter of a century ago.
2 Likes
The term supercruise implies supersonic cruise. While dry thrust is cruising compared to afterburner performance - it also isn’t nearly as efficient as being able to pull the throttle back to a cruise setting and still maintaining a speed above the wave drag boundary.
If your definition of supercruise is that it can surpass the sound barrier on dry thrust alone, sure it supercruises. Is it useful in a tactical manner? Sure! Does it have parity with an airframe actually designed for such operation? Absolutely not.
I mean, honestly… look at the wording. “Super” “Cruise” - That is to cruise in supersonic conditions. The Eurofighter can only do this if you dictate that “cruise” simply means to maintain a steady speed (above the sound barrier) on dry thrust. The F-22 uses the term to simply explain that it is efficiently cruising above the sound barrier and on less than full mil thrust. This is an entirely different level of “supercruise” and puts it well above the Eurofighter in that regard. Putting the two aircraft on the same level in regard to supercruise is as much of a stretch as saying the Eurofighter is also a stealth fighter simply because they slapped RAM on the leading edge of the canards and wing.
2 Likes
They got that definition from somewhere, seeing as it quotes USAF personnel involved in the program, and by that point production F-22 already flew, I think it’s fair to say 1.5+ combat load is the Air Force’s definition of supercruise for a fighter at least
Find another quote direct from the USAF stating it as policy and I’ll agree with you. No argument.
Otherwise it is single quote that may or may not be accurate. After all, we’ve got Mr Floggy claiming that quotes about the Typhoon performance are ‘propaganda’ - so we’ve got to hold all aircraft to the same standard.
If you want more we can DM about it, but it’s not worth arguing in this thread because clearly Eurofighter GMBH has a very different perspective about what supercruise means.
With the USAF you know that a vehicle tagged as “supercruise capable” is going to be able to exceed mach 1.5 on dry thrust whereas with Eurofighter you know it can do maybe 1.5 on dry thrust.
In the case of the F-22 it is certainly propaganda (true or not), with the Eurofighter it is a marketing strategy and not just propaganda seeing as they’re trying to export it.
2 Likes
I’d rather take the definition that best matches the word and purpose or use-case of it.
If you want to say anything that can exceed the sound barrier on dry thrust is supercruise go for it, but it doesn’t make sense. The entire point of developing an aircraft capable of supercruise is to be as efficient as possible while maintaining a high speed tactical advantage. To do so, you’d want to be able to exceed the wave drag barrier (up to 1.5 mach for unoptimized airframes like F-22), maybe 1.4 mach for a more optimized airframe like Eurofighter… Additionally, you’d want to be able to do so while pulling the throttle back off mil thrust. This allows you to avoid temperature limits and shortening of the engine MTBO / lifespan.
If you can’t do that, then there is no real reason to market the capability otherwise unless you’re trying to appear as though there is parity with a better system.
Does that quote actually say you NEED to be of a certain speed or power state to be considered super cruising? No.
I’ll just repost this rather interesting screenshot from yesterday. Want to argue with everyone again about your definitions where mental gymnastics are something of a sport?
Now I’ve realised I’ve broken one of my golden rules and conversed with you. My mistake. It will not happen again.
4 Likes
istg the mods should just blacklist the word “supercruise” at this point
2 Likes
Or a certain poster from crayoning over the Typhoon threads. Can we take a quick vote? =)
3 Likes
This isn’t an attack against you. The logic is sound, the USAF definition closely matches the basic terminology used. The logic that an aircraft supercruising is done most properly when it is surpassing the wave drag boundary and on less than mil thrust is sound.
That does not make your definition of it any less sound - if you want to say the Eurofighter is a supercruise capable aircraft… by all means, just do not compare it to the F-22 as there is no parity there.
1 Like
What percentage of the throttle is “cruise”?