>>30192342
Because it requires a dive, and "dashing" isn't really supercruise.

>>30192372
>Because it requires a dive

According to a blogger who is known for lying about the F-35.

>>30192342
Because Mach 1.2 is in (the end of) the transonic region, and because, according to some posts I've seen which may or may not be correct, Lockheed / the USAF got into a pissing match with Eurofighter 10 or 15 years ago.

The F-22 was new and in order to talk it up, they talked about how it was the only supercruising fighter in the world. Eurofighter talked to the media about how their fighter could also supercruise, so then the US defined supercruising as something like Mach 1.3 or higher to make it clear it wasn't a high transonic aircraft; EF also said theirs could do >Mach 1.3.
The US then increased that to Mach 1.5, because that was a round number (so to speak) and EF said that the Typhoon could do that as well. The US then just gave up trying to redefine supercruise and just said that it could supercruise at Mach 1.7+, which put it ahead of the EF's claim of (IIRC) Mach 1.5+.

>>30192342
Because people are ignorant.

Even a 100 nm F-22 supercruise cuts into its combat radius significantly.

>>30193013
So...dick measuring contest?

And the F-35 has a small feminine shemale/trap dick?

>>30192342
It was not designed to supecruise, its just a bonus that it can.

Hence where the confusion is.

F-35 can do it, its just not apart of the requirement.

>>30192342
Because marketing.

t. Lock Mart SENPAI

>>30193046
In this scenario, pretty much

>>30193037
What makes you think that the F-35's "dash" doesn't do exactly the same thing?

File: f35c-pic.jpg (25 KB, 800x534) Image search: [Google]

25 KB, 800x534

>>30193046
>And the F-35 has a small feminine shemale/trap dick?
Bigger dick than the F-22.

>>30193550
I never implied it did, infact i implied the opposite.