Air at 40,000 ft over Afghanistan could be cooler even.
Dry air cools down faster than wet air. 😉

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth’s_atmosphere

True, I didnt give the best example. How about in singapore? Or even 15 000ft over Afghanistan? But you get the point, it can do it 100% unlike others

It was based on an unknown letter with an unknown source… sent to one of the UK based mags. It was completely unstubstantiated – with no proof other than word of mouth. If that’s what we go by then there are similar claims from people around the Nellis range that say the F-22 is pretty much hammering the EF BVR in these “supposed” DACTs and that the EF is only competitive in WVR – where it can “see” the F-22. Even then in WVR – it’s claimed to be a similar to a match up of F-16/5 vs an EF – while we know the EF hammers them.

Now I personally don’t believe in any of these claims – especially since they are contradictory. While they generally have little to no truth and hardly any relavent context. The point is – don’t be to quick to quote unstubstaintiated rumours – that have no real source… other than word of mouth.

Hmm, I think I read it from a more substantial source, yet to found, than a letter. Its a rather bold statement to be made up, totally out of the blue don’t you think? I believe there is truth to it, after all I think the article was speaking words from an RAF pilots mouth.

Of course I don’t know how it does it, but I would like to keep it that way, keeping the EF ahead of competitors.

True about not giving hard nose evidence, but I’ll see what I can dig up….

Nor is it something prohibited by the laws of physics just because an airframe wasn’t specifically designed for it. See the plethora of aircraft that can cruise above Mach 1 clean without afterburners that weren’t designed specifically to do that. Specifically, what is the Eagle lacking that makes it impossible to supercruise?

What’s more thrust going to do, slow it down?

For true, 100% ,whatever the weather only the F-22 and Eurofighter have demonstrated supercruise. Many can in certain conditions and clean but whats the point of that?

Couldn’t say what is lacking to prevent supercruise end of because I’m not an aeronautical engineer but I know the design of the airframe is the most critical, i.e the different types are drag must be well within the limits for supercruise. Thrust will help, no doubt, but the airframe design is far, far, far more important. Just think the gripen can supercruise with only 13,000lb of thrust.

Agree on 2, disagree on 1.
You can hang 3 tanks, 4 bombs (2 of them 2000lbs) and 6 AAMs on the Eurofighter at one time. Correct is the F-15E has more capability in this point, but for a real life mission no F-15 would fly with 12x 500lbs GPS bombs. Using a supersonic fighter-bomber for close air support is not exactly the benchmark.

I agree, in a SEAD role and bomb strike role its as good as anything really out there. One bone to pic is the combination of two taurus/storm shadow, and this only leaves room for one tank. But then you could argue the point of the weapon permits IFR upto the threat zone, then the missile does the rest of the mission.

Do you know if there are any bomb (mainly “dumb”) target systems borrowed from the Tornado and implemented onto the typhoon?, giving it a very accurate low level precision strike ability.

So Typhoon’s Manuverability is better than flankers??

What comfortable superiority of Typhoon you are talking about?? If Typhoon was set to better the 1970’s Flanker they have failed in this department miserably.

LOL

Explain why it wouldnt with greater TWR, climb rates, acceleration, sustained (although close subsonic, highly, highly in favour supersonically for the typhoon) and instantaneous turn rates.

Please I honestly would like to know why your conclusion is thus, was it an airshow demo that decided it for you?

Just go right on thinking that. It’s clear that you are ignoring the facts. If stealth is on the way out then why are so many countries scrambling to buy the JSF? If stealth is on the way out then how come so many countries are foaming at the mouth lobbying trying to get the F-22 for export? If stealth is on the way out, then how come so many people are copying the technology from the F-22 and the JSF to attempt to make their own indigenous stealth fighters?

Lol, there’re not copying the F-22 and F-35, their not copying at all. They are simply implemeting a new, now understood technology;stealth.

No, according to EADS, the Typhoon is theorized to supercruise to a speed of Mach 1.5 totally clean with uprated engines. Although it could actually mean with “war emergency power” from existing engines rather than new engines…

I NEVER said that the Typhoon can not supercruise, of course it can. However I have yet to see actual proof of the claims being put out by internet posts of Mach 1.3 with 4 AMRAAM, 2 ASRAAM & 2 drop tanks. At any rate believing that the Typhoon can supercruise with 4 AMRAAM, 2 ASRAAM & 2 drop tanks but that the F-35 can not CLEAN is ridiculus.

BS, you can not NO WAY NO HOW supercruise without thrust. Yes it does depend on many, many factors but thrust is a VERY SIGNIFICANT factor.

The F-35 is not an F/A-18E/F. The F-35 has the thrust of the F/A-18E/F but is closer in size to the Rafale (just look at the pictures of F-35 AA-1 with the F-16 chase plane)…

Nope demonstrated on various protoypes during early 2000’s. Your right you never said it carnt, but what you said, made it seem like you though it was highly unlikely. Again I never said the F-35 cannot supercruise…..but the typhoon can with that load I’ll grap the evidence, for mach 1.3 its a single tank I think.

I agree thrust is important but, the thrust level is no where near as important as the drag of the airframe. The gripen can supercrusie , even with only 13,000lb’s of thrust. I don’t think we should really argue on this because I dont think either of us have a degree in aeronautical engineering to back up claims substantially.

The F-35 isnt the F-18E/F, and…..:confused:

So, you are not speculating on the F-35’s aerodynamics? Funny, sounds like your making assumption to me? Just because the F-35 may appear to you as large and even bulky. Doesn’t mean it can’t be adequately aerodynamic compared to its rivals? So, what figures can you provide the back up your assumptions??? Sound like sheer guess work to me? Like the example I gave earlier appearences mean little. The F-4 Phantom II appears more like a “tank” than its slender rocket shaped cousin the F-104. Yet, the F-4 has a almost exactly the same top speed. I wonder how you account for that???

thats exactly the point of the statement, itself, being an example………..