The range numbers for the Gripen NG seem pretty comparable with the ones for the good old Mirage 2000, 800 NM with two externals and four 250 kg bombs, and that M53P has a lousy SFC…

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mirage-2000.htm

As always… without knowing the profile, etc, we don’t know much of anything useful.

Operating a Gripen NG (or any other aircraft) right at its maximum takeoff weight is not going to be a recipe for success for anything other than a ferry mission.

unlike F-35, the variables (i.e drag) are known on gripen E,
ranges probably referring referring to EOL woudnt you think 🙂

You know the drag of the Gripen NG? Why don’t you share?

:stupid:

Idk, if Oblig wants to intentionally look stupid with his trolling, let him. It is far too fun to watch. It was sad when he was heckled out of the forum for a time. Every village needs it’s ****.

There have been some really interesting articles and accounts posted on here the last two days regarding the F-35’s entry into service and pilots impressions. That is for sure.

That is the point, there have been some interesting articles posted but nobody can have an intelligent discussion about them because of the trolling.

We are having a “debate” about whether an internal load for the F-35 includes drop tanks that literally do not exist.

according to your own logic:
“Great, so you assume the use of drop tanks that literally do not exist for the F-35. That makes perfect sense. How big do you imagine they are?”

how could L.M possibly respond to a binding request for max range with DT when they dont exist ?
and how large did L.M imagine those DT were ?

At the time they responded, they were planning them obviously… before later concluding they weren’t worth the effort.

We’ve been thru this crap long time ago with Beesley.. Sorry, I am not buying..

Of course in retrospect it looks like he was pretty much spot on.

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft’s thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its’ larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The “subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get.” Beesley said.

The aircraft flies in “large measure like the F-22, but it’s smaller, and stiffer” than the Raptor however, Beesley explained, adding that the aircraft handles superbly. The reason for the similar flight characteristics, explained the test pilot, is because the man who designed the flight control laws for the Raptor, is also the same man who is responsible for the flight control software for the F-35. As Beesley explains, the flight control laws of modern fighters determine to large extent the flight characteristics of a given aircraft. Beesley said that the aircraft is so stable and so comfortable that the test pilots find themselves inadvertently drifting too close to their wingmen in formation.

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets’ superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor”, Beesley said.

http://www.livescience.com/3032-fighter-jet-controversial-future-fleet.html

So while some clueless sorts around here were insisting that the F-35 was a “bomber,” Beesley was describing an aircraft with impressive acceleration, superb low speed handling, and excellent high AoA capabilities.

Fast forward 8 years and what do we find?

“If you were to engage an F-35 in say, a visual dogfight capability,” he added, “the capabilities of the F-35 are absolutely eye-watering compared to a fourth-generation fighter.”

“The airplane has unbelievable maneuvering characteristics that make it completely undefeatable in an air-to-air environment. So if it’s a long-range contact, you’ll never see me and you’ll die, and if it’s within visual-range contact you’ll see me and you’re gonna die and you’re gonna die very quickly,”

Or…

The F-35 provides me as a pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane where I desire. (The F-35 is capable of significantly higher Angle of Attack (AOA) than the F-16. Angle of Attack describes the angle between the longitudinal axis of the plane – where nose is pointing – and where the aircraft is actually heading – the vector). This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16.

Update: Since I first wrote this post, I have flown additional sorties where I tried an even more aggressive approach to the control position – more aggressive than I thought possible. It worked just fine. The F-35 sticks on like glue, and it is very difficult for the defender to escape.

…

To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent.

In the defensive role the same characteristics are valuable. I can «whip» the airplane around in a reactive maneuver while slowing down. The F-35 can actually slow down quicker than you´d be able to emergency brake your car. This is important because my opponent has to react to me «stopping, or risk ending up in a role-reversal where he flies past me.

or…

“The F-35 will have a large advantage going into the visual arena against fourth generation or aircraft like the Su-35, due to its advanced sensors, stealth and datalink capability and resulting increased situational awareness. We have already seen this during testing at Edwards”, says ‘Gladys’, one of the RNLAF pilots at Edwards.

The visual fight will most likely already be decided before the adversary knows it’s in a dogfight, continues Gladys. “Even so, slow-speed and high angle-of-attack performance is much better than many fourth generation fighters like the F-16. High angle of attack testing has been an eye-opener for previous F-16 pilots, who are not used to very good slow speed performance. Straight line acceleration is also much better. At higher speeds, the F-16 has the sustained turning advantage (as it does over many aircraft like the F-18), but only when fighting in training configurations without any missiles or bombs. When flying in combat configs, even the high speeds sustained fight becomes much closer.”

or…

Thirty-one experienced pilots currently flying the F-35A were asked to rate the energy and maneuvering characteristics of their previous fourth-generation fighters in a combat configuration throughout the dogfighting maneuver envelope in a combat configuration after jettisoning their external stores. They were then asked to rate the performance of the F-35A using the same scale, with fuel and internal munition loads associated with a combat loadout under their current G and CLAW restrictions. The F-35A compared well to the four other fighters (F-15C, F-15E, F-16C, and A-10) in most every regime. (For the total results and responses from the pilots of each respective fighter, see Chart 1.)

Each pilot was then asked to select which fighter he would rather fly in combat if he were to face a clone flying the other jet in six different air-to-air situations. (See Chart 2.) If the pilot selected an F-15C in a short-range setup, for example, he felt he could outperform a pilot of equal abilities in the F-35A. Pilots selected the F-35A 100 percent of the time in beyond-visual-range situations and over 80 percent of dogfighting situations where energy and maneuverability are critical to success.

…

The F-35A was not designed to be an air superiority fighter, but the pilots interviewed conveyed the picture of a jet that will more than hold its own in that environment—even with its current G and maneuver restrictions. In the words of an F-16C Weapons School Graduate and instructor pilot now flying the F-35A, “Even pre-IOC, this jet has exceeded pilot expectations for dissimilar combat. (It is) G-limited now, but even with that, the pedal turns are incredible and deliver a constant 28 degrees/second. When they open up the CLAW, and remove the (7) G-restrictions, this jet will be eye watering.”

So why don’t you point out for us what part of what Beesley said was “crap” since you obviously think you know.

I am not confusing anything.. Those claims are nothing but an opinion and I take them as such..

It’s hopsalot who calls them “evidence”. Go and tell him how wrong he is, I want to see it.

What he was saying politely, is that the pilot being quoted isn’t a clueless idiot and that his opinion needs to be weighted accordingly relative to yours.

if it makes sense, as in backed by logic math or physics, i buy it,
if its senseless drivel that is at odd with physics, like the above mentioned quotes, i dismiss it.

What exactly “is at odd[sic] with physics” about these reports?

If you want to argue that the F-102 is far more maneuverable than a Eurofighter go ahead. It has lower wingloading and so much be according to “physics” right?

i have read first hand accounts by F-35 jockeys that
1] F-35 out perform EF with A2A load
2] F-35 flies precisely as F-22

…its gibberish and constitute trash data

Even if you were accurately characterizing those accounts(and as usual, you haven’t), how on earth would you know if they were true or not without “data?”

As always, you and MSphere choose what you want to believe and simply ignore anything that doesn’t agree with it.