can i say X-29A?
maybe more like its following designs

Although an achievement the ability to maintain M1.2 will not yield a big advantage in operation. Any “supercruise” under M1.3+ is of limited use because of the miserable relation between added speed over ground and loss in specific range.

Can´t make that assumption… the gripen C/D did it with much less thust and AoA ordinance(ok only at right above but any way).. And it does not stand anything about the max dry speed.. normaly envelope expands..so its maybe not full or even military dry thust..
also the fuelfraction of 0.31 makes it a good ranger..

what chances of it supercruising over the hot and humid Indian subcontinent ? very low I’d say..this supercruise in the cold environs of Sweden can hardly be applied to IAF operational philosophy. besides, it must’ve flown clean, and would hardly be able to supercruise with any meaningful payload.

Can´t make that assumption… the gripen C/D did it with much less thust and AoA ordinance.. And it does not stand anything about the max dry speed.. and envelope expands..so its maybe not full or even military dry thust..

Gripen demo supercruises

2009-01-21 | During last Autumn, the Gripen Demo performed 40 sorties as part of the development programme that focuses on opening up the flight envelope regarding speed, altitude, angle-of-attack and loads. This year, the testing has continued at the same high tempo. Today’s supercruise flight is part of the ongoing high speed supersonic testing that will include supersonic flights, with different load alternatives.

Saab test pilot Magnus Ljungdahl flew the Gripen Demonstrator aircraft in supercruise.

“The flight was conducted over the Baltic Sea, my altitude was 28, 000 feet and the speed achieved was above Mach 1.2. Without using afterburner I maintained the same speed until I ran out of test area and had to head back to the Saab Test Flight Centre in Linköping.”

Its the aircraft I find the most interesting, yet it does not mean I talk baised rubbish.

Im baised towards Gripen mostly, when it fits, and EF really fits Japan well.
F-35 does not, if you bother reading about it, and not just say F-35 in every sentence.

You’re not being consistent, & you’re ignoring facts. “Already planned for” is 620 – i.e. including Tranche 3. It’s “planned for”, but not yet ordered. If you actually mean “ordered”, not “planned for”, then you’re completely wrong. Germany & Spain are pressing the UK & Italy to agree to order T3 ASAP. Both are very keen to get their full allocation, & quickly. Neither has a Plan B. If Italy & the UK make that difficult, Germany & Spain have a right (written in to the contract, at British insistence) to compensation which would make it as cheap for the UK to take its full T3 allocation & immediately scrap the lot as to refuse to take it.

What is possible is that the UK & Italy may seek a deal which would allow them to sell on some of their Typhoons. The Germans have suggested they may be willing to agree to that.

not the first time ignoring fact thou…:)

“Is the Typhoon a waste of time?”
You can answer that question with yes or no. Yes because it is no longer the state of art compared to *** or no it is compared to ***?

Maybe you can give an idea, what you have in mind to answer that question?

My answer is, that from 2020 the Typhoon can be obsolete in the air-superiority role or an antidote against stealth is found.
The original Typhoon was designed to cope with the threads in the time-scale of 1990-2010. The end of the Cold War did shift that to 2000-2020 in a general assumption.

updates will make it up to date…stealth is someting that gro in time, todays stealth will probably be antidoted, future stealth is something else..