@ Herald

 

70% high-velocity exhaust + 30% low-velocity bypassed air = high velocity average exhaust.

45% high-velocity exhaust + 55% low-velocity bypassed air = low velocity average exhaust.

 

This is why a Gripen NG with a 22,000 lbs engine will supercruise, but not F-35 with a 40,0000 lbs engine.

 

Concorde had a thrust:weight ratio of 0.3, yet it was the fastest supercruiser of all time, faster than even F-22. Why? Its engines were turbojets, not turbofans.

And that too shows that you don't know what you talk about. Gripen, F-16, and Typhoon all exceed Machy 1 clean at MIL power. The Sparkie should do better than they do as it is less sticky at the transonic regime. More slip.

 

As for the plenum chamber,

 

Hint.... 

 

There is ignorance which can be cured. Cure yourself. 

 

 

@ Herald

 

> And that too shows that you don't know what you talk about.

 

Look who's talking.

 

> Gripen, F-16, and Typhoon all exceed Machy 1 clean at MIL power.

 

Typhoon can supercruise upto Mach 1.5 with four AMRAAMs because it is powered by two supercruising engines. Typhoon is the only certified Supercruising fighter you can buy today, excluding unavailable F-22.

Gripen NG supercruised at Mach 1.2 because it is powered by a supercrusing engine.

F-16 supercruise is a fabled urban legend but not proven.

 

>The Sparkie should do better than they do

 

F-35 is not a supercruise capable fighter. It was never engineered for supercruise nor is its engine designed for supercruise. Lockheed Martin never claimed supercruise capability for F-35.

 

> There is ignorance which can be cured. Cure yourself. 

 

You need more curing than I do.

No the Typhoon can't. its more like Mach 1.123 with the two wingtip missiles only 



And what exactly did I say? Get me LOUD and CLEAR. I said it should do better. Not that it would run around at Mach 1.5 on MIL power.  

It's not that it is previously unheard of.

 

The English Electric ligthning could supercruise.

 

The Concorde could also all across the Atlantic.

 

@ FVJ

Nor would any "mod" be needed to integrate Israeli weapons.  The issue is not the weapons, as you wrongly asserted.  It is whether or not Israel is given sufficient access to the F-35's computer systems to make themselves a second source for F-35 upgrades down the road.

 

You DO realize that isn't Gates speaking right?  Lets get something through your thick skull right now.  You claimed that Gates said that was why he was in Israel.  That is a flat out lie. Nobody here is amused by your consistent inability to speak factually.

 

 

" It is the diplomats like him/her who negotiate agendas and topics of discussion before the high-ranking official(President, Secretary of State, or Defense Secretary)'s visit actually takes place. Most of agreements are made beforehand."

 

You have no idea who the diplomat in question is and what their agenda is.  That is the problem with quoting an unnamed "diplomat."  It could be darn near anyone from anywhere.  Not only that, but even the "diplomat" (note again, not Gates) didn't say a word about weapons integration.

 

You are a liar, and an idiot for thinking it might fool anyone.

 

 

 

Yeah, because you haven't made enough of a fool of yourself so far... 

 

It is POSSIBLE to integrate foreign weapons onto the F-35.  That doesn't mean every weapon on earth will be integrated.  It takes time and money to integrate weapons.  If someone wants to pay to integrate the AA-12, then that is probably possible, though likely a lot more trouble than it is worth. 

 

Israeli weapons on the other hand, already use similar interfaces and hardware.  Those would be much easier to integrate and will almost certainly be integrated in short order, despite your idiotic claims to the contrary.

 

 

Uh huh.... "probably some US diplomat."  That is the problem here.  None of us have any clue who the diplomat in question is, but it is most certainly NOT ROBERT GATES.  You lied, and now you are squirming to avoid admitting it. 

 

Just so you know there is no doubt your original lie is not forgotten, here it is:

 

 

"almost certainly" lol 

 

This is why nobody takes fanboys seriously.  Even after they have made a fool of themselves by telling an obvious lie, they still can't find a way to just admit they were caught and walk away.  Instead they always seem to insist on drawing the whole process out and REALLY getting pounded.

 

Oh really?  Like the one you lied about, claiming Robert Gates said something he didn't?

 

You don't have a clue what Gates's agenda is.  You can't even quote him accurately but you want us to take your word for it that you know what his agenda is?  Get a clue fanboy. 

 

 

The diplomat in question, whoever it was,  was not quoted as saying anything of the sort. 

 

So this is just one more or your lies... why not lie I guess?  It isn't like anyone is going to question whether or not you are a liar so you might as well just go at it 100% right?

 

"If you call the published report a lie, then you discredit yourself."

 

I didn't call it a lie.  I didn't have to.  It simply didn't say anything similar to what you claimed it did. 

 

I mean making a claim and then posting a link that says nothing similar to your claim is pretty darn stupid don't you think?