OK, I’ll try it differently:
-you fly with EFTs, which gives you an combat radius of ~ 715 Nmiles, but it takes you longer to arrive “on station” compared to a clean F 35;
-you fly with one EFT and 4-6 AAMs at 1.2M in SC, but you won’t go more than 200-250 Nmiles;
:p

I think its fair to assume that the Gripen E with AA-load (range 1600km or >860nm) will be able to fly at above mach 0,9.

We could use Obligatorys excellent equation to get an answer.

Drag force (Newtons) = 0.5 x P x V^2 x Cd x A

P = Density of Air (kg/m^3) ~0.232 kg/m^3 @ 12,000 m / 40.000 ft
V = Velocity (m/s) ; Mach 1 = ~295 m/s @ 12,000 m
Cd = Co-efficient of Drag ; <0.6 (for low drag drop tanks, but of course it varies depending on speed)
A = Sectional Area (m^2) ; ~ 0.13 m^2 for a 14″ diameter drop tank.

Drag Force @ Mach 1 = 0.5 x 0.232 x 295^2 x 0.6 x 0.13 = 790 Newtons.

62,3KN is enough to get over mach 1,2 with missiles (in the two seat demo version).
56KN is enough for mach 1,0 with missiles on single seat and lower drag Gripen C (54KN is standard dry thrust).
Even with my old coefficient from the FA18E of 7% it would be fast enough.

So with or without drop tank the NG will be able to supercruise and thus it will be faster than a F35.

Same goes for the EF2000.

The news of the F-35’s supercruise ability was just to finally put an end to the naysayers claiming that the F-35 cannot SC because LM never claimed it could, it’s too fat, the F135 is not made for it, it’s too heavy, etc. Now they can go on about if it was in a dive, what fuel state did it have, was it armed, what altitude, what temp, did it have a tailwind, what was the subsonic range before & after the SC dash, etc, etc.

Funny thing, that info has never been released about the Tiffy, Raf, Gripen NG, Su-35, or even the F-22 yet many claim and readily accept their ability to SC.

That info has been released. What I found interesting was the rather short range och F35 supercruise. 150 miles is less than the old Viggen flew with full AB @ mach 2+… and that was a plane that was known to be thirsty.

I would still call it SC but the range… it can’t consume all fuel in that time. There has to some other reason for the extremely short SC range.

Just as comparison;
The Viggen had 125Kn in power output with afterburner and burned fuel at a rate of 1000 litres per minute. If the F35 is to burn 10’000 litres during those 150 miles (nautical?) it will use it up at over 2000 litres per minute for the same power output.

I don’t buy it (the range issue), it should be closer to 350nm at least. The only explaination i can think of is that its a safety thing for the cooling or coatings. So its 2×150 miles SC @ mach1,2.

It does not outrange the F 35: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=88277&highlight=35+TAC+Brawler

Where did you get this from???

According to@signatory, the premier Gripen source on internet,
a few post’s below:

Or one could check out the offer to the Netherlands.

Gripen NG
Un-refueled range
(internal fuel)
2500 Km
Combat radius (incl 30
min on station)
Ex. 4 RR + 2 IR + ext fuel
1300 Km [30 min on station = >500km range or 250km radius]

This is a combat radius of around 860nm while the F35 only reaches 584nm currently (this might change over time)

When it comes to speed we can check what other fighters can perform.
EF2000 with loaded weight (approx) and 3 1000 litre drop tanks reach mach 1,6 in 1999.

The most ill constructed fighter in a long time when it comes to drag from missiles (because of and outward canted pylons in the FA18E) still manages to get close to mach 1,6 with two amraams and 2 sidewinders and then continues to have about a 7-9% penalty for every step of additional load like drop tank, another pair of missiles etc.

On fighters that doesnt have a pylon layout like that i think its fair to say that <7% drop in flight performance is a reasonable approximation on the upper side. And it works well for the Eurofighter as well. mach 2 x 0,93³ = around mach 1,6 which was performed with three drop tanks in both early trials as well as later on.

So the added drag is of minor importance for speed performance and i think one might see a similar performance drop in maximum acceleration. Wing tip missiles are barely noticeable and this is just an approximation.

This should mean that an F16C with 4 amraams could hold a speed of around mach 1,7. (Based on a C version with no CFTs that can reach mach 2)

The top speed does not matter, it will just rise the closing speed in the typical head-on encounter. It is reached briefly and in full burner high up. The Russian bombers had that dash capability to overcome the SAMs or to have some disengagement capability. Close to 100 % of mission time that were operated at subsonic speed. For some decades fighters did not run to catch bombers but were guided to some intercept points were the AAMs will do the task. Even in WW2 the fighters had to wait for the bombers to come and just a few damaged ones were chased after their weapons-load dropped already. that became

You are about 100% correct. I just compare the F35 to other things flying there and the russian bombers seem pretty relevant. I dont know of any fighter apart from FA18E that is limited to

Look no further than ramjet-powered helicopter blades. One (quite unsuccessful but at the very least, functional) example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiller_YH-32_Hornet

Goes to show that it’s possible, though.

I know that project existed, but doing it 20 years earlier AND putting the rotor in the middle of the airplane is a pretty stupid idea. Helicopters can stabilize themselves thanks to the low point of gravity. This howver is a death trap.

I think these are pretty similar.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/139745/f_35-faces-new-hurdles-in-netherlands%2C-italy-and-canada.html

Seems both Holland and Italy are surprised?

They shouldnt complain. It’s still cheaper than the Hungarian Gripen C/D lease if you put the flyaway price for the Gripen at 50-60m$ and extend the deal to 30 years.

Gripen E, for 30 years will in TCO cost the Swedish taxpayers 1,5bn SEK each or around 223m$.

The F35 is only 37% more expensive than the Gripen (when you go by the 85 airframes offer).

If you use the ratios from the Janes report on fighter costs you will quickly see that the F35 for Netherlands looks cheaper than the F16. I dont think it is possible that a stealth fighter with twice the loaded weight of the F16C can be cheaper to operate. Something is missing in the Dutch numbers.

The F-18E has a lot of inherent drag that keeps it from getting to m1.6 while carrying just 2xAim-9 and 2xAim-120. Going 4xAMRAAM would be even worse due to extra canted pylon on each wing.

I think its a fair bet that the FA18E with the EPE will get above mach 1.6 with BVR missiles. Or what do you think? 20% extra thrust gives over 2% extra speed? http://www.boeing.com/AeroIndia2011/pdf/Aero_India_Super_Hornet_Briefing.pdf

@LmRaptor: We can argue forever on the topic. But if the EWS is up to date then its near impossible to get a BVR kill. WVR or short range missile kills will always be tricky to evade and thats where kills will continue to dominate.

I meant planes with external weapons that have a high drag penalty.

In that case I call that claim bs.

http://www.targetlock.org.uk/typhoon/development.html (About Eurofighter)

DA3 has flown with fully-functioning 1000 liter supersonic fuel tanks, and with subsonic 1500 liter subsonic tanks. The aircraft reached Mach 1.6 with up to three 1000 liter tanks attached, which is a major achievement for a fighter aircraft.

Confirmed by official channels as well.

http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-typhoon/chronology/jumper/chronology-1999.html

December 1999
1st in-flight relight with 03Z engine
1st Flight with full functional Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU)
1st time Mach 1.6 with 3×1000 litre tanks
1st Flight with AVS SP 3A

Maybe its just me but I think it could be made with the smaller and lighter AMRAAMs too.

Rafale, Gripen E both have similar thrust/weight ratio.