It’s a universal law of aircraft design, that drag doesn’t increase linearly with aircraft weight. As a result, larger/heavier aircraft will have better payload/range performance than smaller aircraft, assuming a similar aerodynamic configuration. The rationale for this is that when you scale up an aircraft’s size, you can get a higher internal fuel fraction and/or less relative drag.

Some examples of this:
– A380 > B747
– Mirage IVA > Mirage III
– Gripen NG > Gripen A/C 😉
– Rafale with CFTs > Rafale

As you said, there’s no good range data on the Rafale. So I’ll compare Gripen NG & Typhoon instead:

Clean aircraft
Gripen NG: 2,500km range with 3.5T internal fuel, take-off weight 10.8T, assume 10% fuel reserve
–> 1.6 kg/km
Typhoon: 2,600km range with 5T internal fuel, take-off weight 16.2T, assume 10% fuel reserve
–> 2.15kg/km
So Typhoon’s take-off weight is 50% higher, but fuel consumption only 37% higher.

Ferry Configuration
Gripen NG: 4,000km range with 3.5T internal fuel + 3.6T in 3 drop tanks, take-off weight 15.3T, assume 10% fuel reserve
–> 1.95 kg/km
Typhoon: 3,700km range with 5T internal fuel + 2.4T in 3 drop danks, take-off weight 19.1T, assume 10% fuel reserve
–> 2.25kg/km
So Typhoon’s take-off weight is 25% higher, but fuel consumption only 15% higher.

IMHO, this is also generous, since a true apples-to-apples comparison should be a Typhoon/Rafale with CFTs (fuel fraction 0.39-0.4) vs. a Gripen NG (fuel fraction 0.32).

I understand your point, but…
Weight isnt that important i higher speeds, drag is. So if going to play around the runway practicing touch and go, Rafale wins hands down..
Rafales fuelfraction would be more like 0.33 without CFT with more weight and size, so natural it would have longer range with your universial law right?
but it doesnt.. at least lightly loaded, but the other profiles is not possible to compare

Gripen still have a better ferry range, and no source presented that tells us otherwise..

other factors is also in play.

aerodynamics (drag)
number of engines
engine efficiency
avionics energy consumption

if you play them right they make a difference.

My understanding of aerodynamics is that frontal cross section isn’t what has the most impact on drag. It’s how airflow is disrupted along the aircraft body. Stores on underwing pylons disrupt airflow a lot more than wingtip or semi-recessed AAMs, and they can have nasty interaction effects, which is why multiple ejector racks are so draggy. One of the benefits of size is that you can layout your stores in a way that minimizes drag, for example on the F-15, Rafale and Typhoon.

So for Gripen, I’d be worried about the drag impact of the proposed double Meteor pylons as well as the interaction effects of the two underfuselage stores.

As far as electronics go, sorry for not making my point clear. It’s another version of the size argument: a smaller plane like the Gripen has to fit the same electronics and pilot in a shorter airframe package, leading to slightly more “boxy”, less streamlined aerodynamics, especially around the nose section. This should increase drag, but I admit I can’t prove it without a computer model – just visually, Gripen’s nose section and nose/wing joint area seem less streamligned to me.

Sorry, the CFTs aren’t operational today, but since neither is the Gripen NG, I thought it was fair to include them in the comparison. 😀 Mock-ups have been tested in flight (for the Rafale) or in wind tunnels (for the Typhoon).
– Rafale: 2,300L
– Typhoon: 3,000L

Sorry, another misunderstanding. Of course Gripen consumes less fuel than Rafale/Typhoon. But IMHO, proportionately to weight Gripen will consume more, so with an identical fuel fraction it won’t go as far. Once again, I can’t prove this except by pointing at the aerodynamic differences I’ve already noted (wing loading, stores location, nose section shape).

All gripen versions have been supercruised with AA and 1 DT(A/C 1.1M only thou) and have a topspeed of mach 2. So that must be a prof of a good aerodynamics in straight flight at least, with that small engine and all.
Adding stores will add drag, but at least the extra fuel thats burned is burned in one engine instead of 2 (which is thermodynamically more efficient, exept when going for the big burner).
And the extra drag will be equaly similar.

This is the last thing i write on the subject and no coherent data is still found on Rafale range preformance, exept ferry range, and some vague deepstrike profile and loadout..
So there are no basis on declaring rafale as a winner in this department..
Gripen have stated a better ferry range and thats it.
the other flight profiles cant be compared.

Any source of those “bigger” gripens burnrates per weight?

LOL
Last time I checked, all these numbers were wrong. Try again…

please help me then, get te data to the table!?

That you and “Showtimes” fixation on flame color is fanboyism at it’s best. The same engine can produce different color flames depending on conditions and yes, fuel. For instance natural gas at 3450F will produce a nice blue flame. RP-1 and LOX on the other hand will burn at 6000F+ and does not burn blue at any point.

Oh look, blue flame out of a half-century old low pressure turbojet (certainly not anything one would equate with fuel efficiency).

Hot or what?!

The so called “upgrade” is in fact a new aircraft in an old airframe. No wonder that’s not cheap…

that is what a total avionics upgrade is!? wonder why the israelis offered half the price of dassault then..

Well the hat’s none too impressive but the wingtip sidewinder rails are quite interesting.

i missed that!? 🙂

Dassault mirage 2000 avionics upgrade to india wasnt ither so great….

Larger aperture size of the Typhoon translating to some 1400 TRMs iirc.

Agreed, its just that I think as far as capabilities go, in airborne systems both Selex and Thales are equivalent having done a lot of research into AESAs.

Saab done it since the -90, and does have commersial products, thou not in a fighter application. Both Selex and Saab does have multifunctional TRM technology.. so they are in the same page as the americans on paper… Dont know the difference in power and weight thou.

The big challenge for Euroland is to industrialize the products at hand. they are today made in small numbers and are not cheap. Without orders its not going to happen..