Kid, don’t troll/LOL

How old do you think I am? I presume you were born in 1973? You keep saying kid, and you know nothing about my background.

It says AG attack and I’ve shown you the list of AG configurations, all of which are significantly heavier than anything F35C can carry internally.
Now, if I was you, I could go ahead and troll about EF doing this on internal fuel only, since the text nowhere says, that EF uses tanks for those ranges, does it?

Very few missions are flown with the max load out, so it’s a bit daft to think that the combat radius given coincides with the maximum possible payload.
In theory an F-16 can carry 15,800lbs of stores, but it’ll never do that in practice.

Anyway, all this is immaterial since you lost the argument as early as on mission profile, so even if we assume the EF somehow carried similar loadout (it’s not possible to arm EF so poorly, though) to F35C, it’ll outrange F35 by even a larger margin, with tanks.

Which mission profile of the Typhoon has a combat radius over 900nm?

LOL…
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.php
http://www.airpower.at/flugzeuge/eurofighter/technik-daten.htm
Weapon loadouts…
http://www.eurofighter.com/et_sr_mc_sw.asp

LOL, Wrightwing. Just as I thought and wrote in my previous post.
Reread attack profile paragraph of my last post, although I don’t imagine it’ll make much difference since you obviously didn’t understand it, the first time…
I mean, this is getting funny, watching you trying to “interpret” the figures for us. 😀
Seriously man, you don’t have a clue…

I’m not saying the Typhoon can’t carry all that. I’d just like to see where it says that 750nm combat radius is with that particular load out.

Wrightwing, EF’s AG radius is 750nm, BUT on a high-LOW-high profile and full weapon loadout (6-8 AAMs and 2-4 AG weapons plus 2 tanks).
F35C computer game’s radius is 768nm, BUT for a high-HIGH-high profile and 2 AMRAAMs and 2 JDAMs.
EF is M1.3 capable in QRA (2 tanks) configuration, on dry power alone.
You don’t even have an idea, of what you’re talking about, do you?
What matters in your little world, is that F35C’s (F35A’s imaginary friend) figure is 18nm larger than EF’s, doesn’t it?? 😀 …seriously, go learn anything about planes. 😉

I’d love to see the source for 8 AAMs and 4 A/G weapons, and achieving that range. That’s 18nm further on internal fuel, than the Typhoon on internal fuel, and 2 EFTs. Even the F-35A isn’t much different(728nm, and that includes a low altitude leg, and cruise at 25k feet- I suspect that at 35-40k+ you could squeeze even more range).
As for the F-35’s capabilities on dry thrust, I wonder if you’d share what that figure is for us, bearing in mind that the F-35 can reach high subsonic at less than 50% dry thrust(Code One Magazine 2007).

LOL Wrightwing, so how did you figure, F35 has longer range on internal fuel than EF with tanks, from this document? 😀

The Typhoon’s combat radius is ~750nm with 2 tanks, so it’s close.

It depends on how you look at it. An example – imagine a test with F-35 carrying two dummy bombs, fueled at 15% and accompanying F-16C fueled at 90%. Duing the acceleration phase the pilots find out that the F-16 is not quite able to cope with the F-35 in that conditions. Beesley reports that to LM and their PR decided to use it.

So they let Beesley say: a loaded F-35 can out-accelerate a clean F-16C Block 50.

Is he lying? Technically he isn’t. What he says is true. He just doesn’t say the important details which change the whole picture.

Ask yourself this question- what information would LM be able to determine from a flight test under those conditions? If one wishes to go to irrational lengths in order to argue the F-35 doesn’t perform well, they can come up with all sort ofs what ifs, yet claims from other manufacturers are accepted at face value. That doesn’t fly with me(no pun intended:cool:).
If however you look at the examples where LM mentions flying with a full load of fuel and 5500lbs of simulated ordinance, and performing well, you’ll get a better idea than imagining the above scenario being likely.

You may want to look at pages 38-41 a little closer. There are 3 hardpoints under each wing(6), plus the internal hardpoints, and the hardpoint for the gun.

Well the figures on page 42 were what I was pointing out, where the comparisons of RCS were listed.

F-35-

internal carriage- ~5500lbs
external carriage ~15000lbs(and the F-35 doesn’t have to waste pylons for things like targeting or ECM pods)

Sensor fusion-

Saying that all sensor fusion is the same is like saying a Ford Mustang and a Porsche 911 Turbo are both cars. Not only are there different levels in the sensors that are being fused, but in the level of integration of the fused information.